The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 2019-0004; 330 CHINQUAPIN AVE; Cultural Resources Survey Report; 2018-10-01. ~~ l-:, (>· --I \I f'7. ~ APR 1 7 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAl) PLANNING DIVISIO~< Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Development Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Prepared for: Jeffrey C. Galizio, M.E.D. 330 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared by: Erica Nicolay, MA; Angela Pham, MA, RPA; Nicole Frank, MSHP; Kara R. Dotter, MSHP; and Brad Comeau, MSc, RPA DUDEK 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 OCTOBER 2018 Type of Study: Cultural Resource Phase I Survey USGS Quadrangle: San Luis Rey, California 7.5', Tl2S, R4W, Section 7; Area: 0.6 acres Key Words: Pedestrian survey; Negative; City of Carlsbad, CRHR; CEQA; Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. .., • . A Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Project Description and Location ............................................................................ 3 1.2 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Federal Level Regulations .......................................................................... 3 1.2.2 State Level Regulations .............................................................................. 4 1.2.3 Local Level Regulations ........................................................................... 11 1.3 Native American Coordination ............................................................................. 14 1.4 Report Format and Key Personnel ........................................................................ 14 2 SETTING .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Environmental and Geological Setting ................................................................. 15 2.2 Prehistoric Context ................................................................................................ 15 2.2.1 Paleoindian Period (pre-5500 BC) ............................................................ 16 2.2.2 Archaic Period (8000 BC-AD 500) .......................................................... 17 2.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period .............................................................................. 18 2.2.4 Ethnographic Period .................................................................................. 19 2.3 Historic Period ...................................................................................................... 21 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................ 25 3 .1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 25 3.2 Built Environment Resources ............................................................................... 25 4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Archival Research ................................................................................................. 27 4.2 SCIC Record Search ............................................................................................. 27 4.2.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies .................................... 28 4.2.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources .................................................. 31 4.3 Cultural Resources Field Survey Results .............................................................. 33 4.4 Built Environment Field Survey Results .............................................................. 35 5 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION .................................................................................. 43 5.1 NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance .............................................................. 43 5.2 City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory Statement of Significance .......... 44 5.3 Integrity Discussion .............................................................................................. 45 5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 46 DUDEI< 11409 October 2018 Section Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. 6 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 47 6.1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources ................................................... 4 7 6.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains ....................................................... 47 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 49 8 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE (NADB) INFORMATION ......... 55 APPENDICES A Confidential Cultural Resources Record Search B Native American Correspondence C DPRForms FIGURES 1 Project Location Map ........................................................................................................... 7 2 View of undeveloped area northwest of the existing residence, view to southeast (IMG_l 150) ....................................................................................................... 34 3 View of single-family home, view to northwest (IMG _ 1137) ......................................... .35 4 Southeast and northeast elevations, view to west (DSC00436) ........................................ .37 5 Southeast elevation of the garage, view to northwest (DSC00479) ................................. .37 6 Northeast elevation, view to southwest (IMG_8991) ....................................................... .38 7 Northeast elevation of the garage, view to northwest (DSC00480) .................................. 39 8 Northwest elevation, view to southeast (IMG_9025) ....................................................... .40 9 Breezeway between main building and garage, view to southwest (IMG_8984) ............ .41 10 Visible portion of southwest elevation, view to northeast (DSC00514 ) .......................... .42 TABLES 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One-Mile of the Project APE ....................... .28 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One-Mile of the Project APE ................ 32 DUDEK ii 11409 October 2018 .. .,, Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the results of a Phase I cultural resources investigation performed by Dudek for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project (Project), a residential development which is located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The Project site is located in Section 7 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West, as shown on the San Luis Rey, California, USGS 7 .5 Minute Series Quadrangle. The Project proposes the construction of one single family home, a two unit multi-family dwelling, and a three-unit multi-family dwelling. Each unit and the house will have an attached garage and there will be additional guest parking located within the Project site. The Project area of potential effect (APE) comprises the entire 0.6-acre parcel (APN 206- 020-11-00). The City of Carlsbad (City) is the Lead Agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, Dudek performed a Phase I intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey and records search of the Project APE. A search of files from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) indicated that no cultural resources have been recorded within the Project APE. A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search indicated that Native American resources are present. An intensive pedestrian survey of the site failed to identify any archaeological artifacts or deposits. The study includes a pedestrian survey for historic built environment resources, an analysis of building development and archival research, and the recordation and evaluation of the existing single-family residence and attached garage (subject property) on the Project site. This document includes an assessment of Project-related impacts to historical resources in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and all applicable local municipal code and planning documents. The subject property and all associated buildings were found not eligible under all NRHP, CRHR, and City of Carlsbad designation criteria and integrity requirements. Therefore, the subject property is not considered an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. No management recommendations or additional study is required for historic built environment resources. Dudek's Phase I cultural resources inventory of the Project indicates that there is a low sensitivity for intact subsurface archaeological deposits. No archaeological resources were identified within the Project APE or the immediate vicinity during the intensive pedestrian survey and the SCIC records search did not identify cultural resources within or adjacent to the Project APE. No further archaeological efforts or mitigation, including archaeological construction monitoring, are recommended in support of implementation of the Project. However, this report includes recommendations for the unlikely event that cultural resources or human remains are encountered during construction activities. DUDEI< 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 11409 October 2018 . .., Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description and Location The proposed 330 Chinquapin A venue Development Project (Project) is located at 330 Chinquapin A venue, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The Project is located in Section 7 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West on the San Luis Rey, California, USGS 7 .5 Minute Series Quadrangle (Figure 1 ). The Project APE is located approximately 0.25 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, 0.40 miles west of the 1-5 North, and approximately 0.12 miles north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Elevation within the Project site is between 52 and 56 feet above mean sea level. The Project proposes the construction of one single family home, a two unit multi-family dwelling, and a three-unit multi-family dwelling. Each unit and the house will have an attached garage with additional guest parking located within the Project site. The Project area of potential effect (APE) comprises the entire 0.6-acre parcel (APN 206-020-11-00). The City of Carlsbad (City) is the Lead Agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, Dudek performed a Phase I intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey and records search of the Project APE. The Project APE is currently developed with one residential structure. The residence currently occupies the southeastern half of the Project APE, while the northwestern half of the Project APE is undeveloped. The APE is surround by moderately dense residential development. 1.2 Regulatory Context 1.2.1 Federal Level Regulations Although there is no federal nexus for this Project, resources were evaluated in consideration of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) designation criteria. The NRHP is the United States' official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation. Overseen by the National Park Service under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks and historic areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS). NRHP guidelines for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation's history and heritage. Its criteria are designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the NRHP. For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of the following criteria: DUDEK 3 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity is defined in NRHP guidance, How to Apply the National Register Criteria, as ''the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the NRHP, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the NRHP criteria, but it also must have integrity" (NPS 1990). Historic properties either retain integrity ( convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that define integrity. The seven aspects of integrity are locations, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. In order to retain historic integrity "a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects" (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). NRHP guidance further asserts that properties be completed at least 50 years ago to be considered for eligibility. Properties completed fewer than 50 years before evaluation must be proven to be "exceptionally important" ( criteria consideration G) to be considered for listing. 1.2.2 State Level Regulations The California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code section 5020 et seq.) In California, the term "historical resource" includes but is not limited to "any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (California Public Resources Code section 5020.lG)). In 1992, the California legislature established CRHR ''to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, DUDEK 4 11409 October 2018 ... Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project from substantial adverse change" (California Public Resources Code section 5024.l(a)). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it is a significant resource and that it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria: • Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. • 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. • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (California Public Resources Code section 5024.l(c).) Resources less than 50 years old are not considered for listing in the CRHR, but may be considered if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand the historical importance of the resource (see 14 CCR, section 4852( d)(2) ). The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. The State Historic Preservation Officer maintains the CRHR. Native American Historic Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code section 5097 et seq.) State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a Project; and establishes the NRHP to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Act), enacted in 2001, required all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with DUDEI< 5 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes. California Environmental Quality Act As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological and historic resources: 1. California Public Resources Code section 21083.2(g): Defmes ''unique archaeological resource." 2. California Public Resources Code section 21084. l and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a): Define historical resources. In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource;" it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource. 3. California Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e): Set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony. 4. California Public Resources Code sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4: Provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including options of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s). California Natjve American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Repatriation Act), enacted in 200 I, required all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes. DUDEK 6 11409 October 2018 .. 0 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project -"'Z.. -------------------~- 0 Project Boundary SOURCE USGS 7 5 ~•inute Senes San Lu, Rey Olladrangte FIGURE 1 Project Location D u D E K ' ·-=10_00--==='2co~ .. 1 130 Chm~uapin Ave R1>sidl'nMI Prn!t!CI DUDEI< 7 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 11409 October 2018 .. . . Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project California Environmental Quality Act Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause "a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource" (California Public Resources Code section 21084. l; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.S(b )). If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code section 5024.l(q)), it is a "historical resource" and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.S(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Public Resources Code section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.S(a)). A "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource" reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.S(b)(l); California Public Resources Code section 5020.l(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: 1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or 2. 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.l(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, 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 3. 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 California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. See Section 1.2.2, below for a discussion of the CEQA guidelines for determining significance and mitigating impacts to unique archaeological resources . DUDEK 9 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County coroner has examined the remains (section 7050.5b). lfthe coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (section 7050.5c). The NAHC will notify the Most Likely Descendant. With the permission of the landowner, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 24 hours of notification of the Most Likely Descendant by the NAHC. The Most Likely Descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans. Senate Bill 18 California Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which took effect on March 1, 2005, requires local ( city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places in creating or amending general plans, including specific plans (Government Code section 65352.3). Assembly Bill 52 California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which took effect July 1, 2015, establishes a consultation process between California Native American Tribes and lead agencies in order to address tribal concerns regarding project impacts and mitigation to ''tribal cultural resources" (TCR). Public Resources Code section 21074(a) defines TCRs and states that a project that has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR is a project that may have an adverse effect on the environment. A TCR is defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either: 1. listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of historical resources, or 2. determined by a lead agency to be a TCR. Traditional Cultural Properties Native American Heritage Values Federal and state laws mandate that consideration be given to the concerns of contemporary Native Americans with regard to potentially ancestral human remains associated funerary objects, and DUDEK 10 11409 October 2018 ! " .. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project items of cultural patrimony. Consequently, an important element in assessing the significance of the study site has been to evaluate the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Also potentially relevant to prehistoric archaeological sites is the category termed Traditional Cultural Properties in discussions of cultural resource management (CRM) performed under federal auspices. According to Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), "Traditional" in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include: 1. A location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; 2. A rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents; 3. An urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices; 4. A location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and 5. A location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity. • A Traditional Cultural Property, then, can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. 1.2.3 Local Level Regulations City of Carlsbad General Plan The City of Carlsbad General Plan (2015) affords consideration for the preservation of cultural resources. The City's Vision Statement Core Values for their General Plan note examples of the historical resources within the City including the Rancho Carrillo, the Marron Adobe, the Barrio neighborhood, the Magee House, and the Village (ECO RP 2017). The General Plan includes guidelines to help revitalize the historic Barrio and Village neighborhoods. The General Plan also DUDEK 11 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project states the goal of enhancing education about the area's Native American history. Following are relevant goals and policies of the Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element of the City's General Plan (paraphrased): Goal 7-G-l : Recognize, protect, preserve, and enhance the city's diverse heritage. Policy 7-P.l Prepare an updated inventory of historic resources in Carlsbad with recommendations for specific properties and districts to be designated in national, state, and local registries, if determined appropriate and with agreement of the property owners. Policy 7-P.2 Encourage the use of regional, state and federal programs that promote cultural preservation to upgrade and redevelop properties with historic or cultural value. Policy 7-P.5 Encourage the rehabilitation of qualified historic structures through application of the California Historical Building Code. Policy 7-P.6 Ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to historic structures listed or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Policy 7-P.7 Implement the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources. Policy 7-P.8 During construction of specific development projects, require monitoring of grading, ground-disturbing, and other major earth-moving activities in previously undisturbed areas or in areas with known archaeological or paleontological resources by a qualified professional, as well as a tribal monitor during activities in areas with cultural resources of interest to local Native American tribes. Both the qualified professional and tribal monitor shall observe grading, ground-disturbing, and other earth-moving activities. Policy 7-P .9 Ensure that treatment of any cultural resources discovered during site grading complies with the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines. Determination of the significance of the cultural resource(s) and development and implementation of any data recovery program shall be conducted in consultation with interested Native American tribes. All Native American human remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. Policy 7-P.10 Require consultation with the appropriate organizations and individuals, the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC], and Native American groups and DUDEI< 12 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project individuals) to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources that may occur as a result of a proposed project. Policy 7-P.11 Prior to occupancy of any buildings, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all materials recovered shall be submitted to the City Planner. City of Carlsbad Council Policy No. 83 Effective March 1, 2016, the City Council passed Policy No. 83, Tribal Consultation and Treatment and Protection of Tribal Cultural Resources (ECO RP 2017). The purpose of the policy was to recognize the City's "responsibility to protect with improved certainty the important historical and cultural values of current Tribal Cultural Resources within the City limits and to establish an improved framework for the City's consultation with Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City of Carlsbad, including the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians." This policy arose out of focused consultation with San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and, to the extent allowed under the authority of the City, urges City and private projects under the jurisdiction of the City to be designed to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in CEQA (ECORP 2017). City of Carlsbad Municipal Code -Historic Preservation According to Chapter 22.06 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, an historic resource may be considered and approved by the City Council for inclusion in the City's historic resources inventory based on one or more of the following: • It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; • It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; • It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect; • It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological, or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; • It is a geographically definable area with a concentration of buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, DUDEI< 13 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. 1.3 Native American Coordination The City is responsible for conducting formal government-to-government consultation with Native American tribes. Dudek has assisted with this process by initiating contact with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in a letter requesting a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on September 26, 2018. The NAHC replied via email on October 12, 2018 stating that the SLF search was completed with positive results; however, they did not specify whether resources had been identified directly within the Project APE (Appendix B). The NAHC did recommend that the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians be contacted for more information. The NAHC also attached a contact list containing 17 Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have direct knowledge of cultural resources in or near the Project APE (Appendix B). Letters with a map and description of the planned Project were subsequently sent to these individuals and organizations on October 16, 2018, (Appendix B). No responses to the letters have been received to date. Any responses that are received will be forwarded to you and the City. 1.4 Report Format and Key Personnel Following this Introduction, Chapter 2 presents the environmental and historical background of the area. Chapter 3 outlines the methods used to conduct this study. Chapter 4 presents the results of the records searches and field survey. Chapter 5 summarizes the study. Three appendices accompany this report: Confidential Appendix A includes archaeological records search information; Appendix B includes Native American correspondence documents; and Appendix C includes a Department of Recreation and Parks (DPR) site record completed for the existing residence located within the APE. Angela Pham, M.A. RP A and Brad Comeau, M.Sc., RP A served as co-principal investigator, field director, and report author. Erica Nicolay, M.A., assisted in report preparation. The pedestrian survey was performed by Dudek archaeologist Angela Pham and Saving Sacred Sites representative Kenny Teter. Matthew Decarlo, M.A., performed the cultural resources records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC). For the built environment resources, Kara R. Dotter, MSHP, and Nicole Frank, MSHP, conducted the site survey. Frank conducted the majority of the archival research, and both Frank and Dotter drafted the relevant report sections. DUDEK 14 11409 October 2018 .- 2 2.1 SETTING Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Environmental and Geological Setting The Project APE is located within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province within the greater California batholith, which was formed by volcanic uplift of intrusive igneous rock resulting from the subduction of the Pacific Plate underneath the North American Plate (Abbott 1999). This formation is typical of the steep, elongated valleys surrounded by well-rounded hills and mesas of moderate relief. The project site is situated within the coastal plain, underlain by tertiary to quaternary aged marine sedimentary sandstone deposits. The older tertiary aged formational bed rock unit (Middle Eocene-age Santiago Formation) which is exposed in the lower reaches of the site is an off-white colored fine to coarse grained cemented massive sandstone. Overlying this formational bedrock unit is the younger quaternary aged terrace deposit that is tan to light brown colored, fine to medium grained sandstone. Loose sand deposits also occur within the upper terrace deposit. Colluvial and top soil materials mantle the terrace deposit and consist of brown colored silty sands to sandy clays that are in a loose to stiff condition. Fill soils comprised of brown colored silty sands, are found along Adams Street (Vinje & Middleton Engineering 1998). Annual precipitation in the area is minimal, with the vast majority falling from January to March, although surrounding mountains receive considerably more (Minnich 2007). Average temperatures range from 12.1 °Celcius (C) in January to 25.7°C in July in the valleys, with cooler temperatures in the mountains (Minnich 2007). Specifically, the site is located along the northern shore of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and would have supported riparian vegetation including sycamores (Platunus racemosa), coast live oaks (Quercus agrifo/ia), and willows (Salix sp.), and a variety of seed and fruit bearing plants. The chaparral vegetation zone would have surrounded the creek. 2.2 Prehistoric Context Evidence for continuous human occupation in Southern California spans the last 10,000 years. Various attempts to parse out variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad time frame have led to the development of several cultural chronologies; some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions. Each of these reconstructions describes essentially similar trends in assemblage composition in more or less detail. This research employs a common set of generalized terms used to describe chronological trends in assemblage composition: Paleoindian (pre-5500 BC), Archaic (8000 BC-AD 500), Late Prehistoric (AD 500-1750), and Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1750). DUDEK 15 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 2.2.1 Paleoindian Period (pre-5500 BC) Evidence for Paleoindian occupation in coastal Southern California is tenuous, especially considering the fact that the oldest dated archaeological assemblages look nothing like the Paleoindian artifacts from the Great Basin. One of the earliest dated archaeological assemblages in coastal Southern California (excluding the Channel Islands) derives from SDI-4669/W-12, in La Jolla. A human burial from SDI-4669 was radiocarbon dated to 9,590-9,920 years before present (95 .4 % probability) (Hector 2007). The burial is part of a larger site complex that contained more than 29 human burials associated with an assemblage that fits the Archaic profile (i.e., large amounts of ground stone, battered cobbles, and expedient flake tools). In contrast, typical Paleoindian assemblages include large stemmed projectile points, high proportions of formal lithic tools, bifacial lithic reduction strategies, and relatively small proportions of ground stone tools. Prime examples of this pattern are sites that were studied by Emma Lou Davis (1979) on Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake near Ridgecrest, California. These sites contained fluted and unfluted stemmed points and large numbers of formal flake tools (e.g., shaped scrapers, blades). Other typical Paleoindian sites include the Komodo site (MNO-679)--a multicomponent fluted point site, and MNO-680-a single component Great Basined Stemmed point site (see Basgall et al. 2002). At MNO-679 and -680, ground stone tools were rare while finely made projectile points were common. Turning back to coastal Southern California, the fact that some of the earliest dated assemblages are dominated by processing tools runs counter to traditional notions of mobile hunter-gatherers traversing the landscape for highly valued prey. Evidence for the latter-that is, typical Paleoindian assemblages-may have been located along the coastal margin at one time, prior to glacial desiccation and a rapid rise in sea level during the early Holocene (pre-7500 BP) that submerged as much as 1.8-kilometers of the San Diego coastline. If this were true, however, it would also be expected that such sites would be located on older landforms near the current coastline. Some sites, such as SDI-210 along Agua Hedionda Lagoon, contained stemmed points similar in form to Silver Lake and Lake Mojave projectile points (pre-8000 BP) that are commonly found at sites in California's high desert (see Basgall and Hall 1993). SDI-210 yielded one corrected radiocarbon date of 8520-9520 BP (see Warren et al. 2004). However, sites of this nature are extremely rare and cannot be separated from large numbers of milling tools that intermingle with old projectile point forms. Warren et al. (2004) claimed that a bi face manufacturing tradition present at the Harris site complex (SDI-149) is representative of typical Paleoindian occupation in the San Diego region that possibly dates between 10,365 and 8200 BC (Warren et al. 2004). Termed San Dieguito (Rogers 1945), assemblages at the Harris site are qualitatively distinct from most others in the San Diego region because the site has large numbers of finely made bifaces (including projectile DUDEI< 16 11409 October 2018 . . . ... Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project points), formal flake tools, a bi face reduction trajectory, and relatively small amounts of processing tools (see also Warren 1964, 1968). Despite the unique assemblage composition, the definition of San Dieguito as a separate cultural tradition is hotly debated. Gallegos (1987, 1991) suggested that the San Dieguito pattern is simply an inland manifestation of a broader economic pattern. Gallegos' interpretation of San Dieguito has been widely accepted in recent years, in part because of the difficulty in distinguishing San Dieguito components from other assemblage constituents. In other words, it is easier to ignore San Dieguito as a distinct socioeconomic pattern than it is to draw it out of mixed assemblages. The large number of finished bifaces (i.e., projectile points and non-projectile blades), along with large numbers of formal flake tools at the Harris site complex, is very different than nearly all other assemblages throughout the San Diego region, regardless of age. Warren et al. (2004) made this point, tabulating basic assemblage constituents for key early Holocene sites. Producing finely made bifaces and formal flake tools implies that relatively large amounts of time were spent for tool manufacture. Such a strategy contrasts with the expedient flake-based tools and cobble-core reduction strategy that typifies non-San Dieguito Archaic sites. It can be inferred from the uniquely high degree of San Dieguito assemblage formality that the Harris site complex represents a distinct economic strategy from non-San Dieguito assemblages. San Dieguito sites are rare in the inland valleys of Riverside County, with one possible candidate, RIV- 2798/H, located on the shore of Lake Elsinore. Excavations at Locus B at RIV-2798/H produced a toolkit consisting predominately of flaked stone tools, including 15 crescents, 6 points, and 49 bifaces, and lesser amounts of groundstone tools (9 handstones, 10 millingstones), among other items (Grenda 1997). A calibrated and reservoir corrected radiocarbon date from a shell produced a date of 6630 BC. Grenda (1997) suggested this site represents seasonal exploitation of lacustrine _resources and small game, and resembles coastal San Dieguito assemblages and spatial patterning. If San Dieguito truly represents a distinct socioeconomic strategy from the non-San Dieguito Archaic processing regime, its rarity implies that it was not only short-lived, but that it was not as economically successful as the Archaic strategy. Such a conclusion would fit with other trends in Southern California deserts, wherein hunting-related tools are replaced by processing tools during the early Holocene (see Basgall and Hall 1993; Basgall and McGuire 1988). 2.2.2 Archaic Period (8000 BC-AD 500) The more than 2,500-year overlap between the presumed age of Paleoindian occupations and the Archaic period highlights the difficulty in defining a cultural chronology in the San Diego region. If San Dieguito is the only recognized Paleoindian component in the San Diego region, then the dominance of hunting tools implies that it derives from Great Basin adaptive strategies and is not DUDEI< 17 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project necessarily a local adaptation. Warren et al. (2004) admitted as much, citing strong desert connections with San Dieguito. Thus, the Archaic pattern is the earliest local socioeconomic adaptation in the San Diego region (see Hale 2001, 2009). The Archaic pattern is relatively easy to define with assemblages that consist primarily of processing tools: millingstones, handstones, battered cobbles, heavy crude scrapers, incipient flake-based tools, and cobble-core reduction. These assemblages occur in all environments across the San Diego region, with little variability in tool composition. Low assemblage variability over time and space among Archaic sites has been equated with cultural conservatism (see Byrd and Reddy 2002; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2004 ). Despite enormous amounts of archaeological work at Archaic sites, little change in assemblage composition occurred until the bow and arrow was adopted at around AD 500, as well as ceramics at approximately the same time (Griset 1996; Hale 2009). Even then, assemblage formality remained low. After the bow was adopted, small arrow points appear in large quantities and already low amounts of formal flake tools are replaced by increasing amounts of expedient flake tools. Similarly, shaped millingstones and handstones decreased in proportion relative to expedient, unshaped ground stone tools (Hale 2009). Thus, the terminus of the Archaic period is equally as hard to define as its beginning because basic assemblage constituents and patterns of manufacturing investment remain stable, complimented only by the addition of the bow and ceramics. 2.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period The period of time following the Archaic and prior to ethnohistoric times (AD 1750) is commonly referred to as the Late Prehistoric (Rogers 1945; Wallace 1955; Warren et al. 2004). However, several other subdivisions continue to be used to describe various shifts in assemblage composition, including the addition of ceramics and cremation practices. In northern San Diego County, the post- A.D. 1450 period is called the San Luis Rey Complex {True 1980). Rogers (1929) also subdivided the last 1,000 years into the Yuman II and III cultures, based on the distribution of ceramics. Despite these regional complexes, each is defined by the addition of arrow points and ceramics, and the widespread use of bedrock mortars. Vagaries in the appearance of the bow and arrow and ceramics make the temporal resolution of the San Luis Rey complexes difficult. For this reason, the term Late Prehistoric is well-suited to describe the last 1,500 years of prehistory in this region. Temporal trends in socioeconomic adaptations during the Late Prehistoric are poorly understood. This is partly due to the fact that the fundamental Late Prehistoric assemblage is very similar to the Archaic pattern, but includes arrow points, large quantities of fine debitage from producing arrow points, ceramics, and cremations. The appearance of mortars and pestles is difficult to place in time because most mortars are found on bedrock surfaces; bowl mortars are actually rare in this region. Some argue that the ethnohistoric intensive acorn economy extends as far back as AD 500 DUDEI< 18 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project (Bean and Shipek 1978). However, there is no substantial evidence that reliance on acorns, and the accompanying use of mortars and pestles, occurred prior to AD 1400. True (1980) argued that acorn processing and ceramic use in the northern San Diego region did not occur until the San Luis Rey pattern emerged after approximately AD 1450. Similar to True (1980), Hale (2009) argued that an acorn economy did not appear in the southern San Diego region until just prior to ethnohistoric times, and that when it did occur, a major shift in social organization followed. An acorn dependent economy likely appeared in southwestern Riverside County and Northern San Diego County around the same time, with equivalent social changes. 2.2.4 Ethnographic Period Early descriptions of the lifeways of Southern California ethnohistoric groups were provided by explorers, missionaries, administrators, and other travelers, who gave particular attention to the coastal populations (Boscana 1846; Fages 1937; Geiger and Meighan 1976; Harrington 1934; Laylander 2000). Subsequent ethnographers in the early twentieth century were able to give much more objective, detailed, and penetrating accounts. Most of the ethnographers attempted to distinguish between observations of the customs of surviving Native Americans and orally transmitted or inferred information concerning the lifeways of native groups prior to European intrusion into the region. The second of these subjects provides a terminal baseline for discussing the cultures of the region's prehistory. Despite the relatively rich ethnographic record, attempts to distinguish between the archaeological residues that were produced by the linguistically unrelated but culturally similar Luisefio and lpai/Kumeyaay have been largely unsuccessful (Pigniolo 2004; True 1966). The first systematic ethnographic work in California was done in 1871 and 1872 by Stephen Powers (Heizer 1978); in 1877, Powers collected and printed his ethnographic observations in Tribes of California (Powers 1877). Prior to the work of Powers, there were limited records and accounts that might be broadly considered as ethnohistorical data, such as Boscana (1846). At the beginning of the twentieth century, Alfred L. Kroeber and others began four decades of systematic documentation of tribal ethnographies. Kroeber's (1925) monumental work on the Indians of California continues to be an authoritative source of information. It is important to note that even though there were many informants for these early ethnographies who were able to provide information from personal experiences about native life before the Europeans, a significantly large proportion of these informants were born after 1850 (Heizer and Nissen 1973); therefore, the documentation of pre- contact, aboriginal culture was being increasingly supplied by individuals born in California after considerable contact with Europeans. As Robert F. Heizer (1978) stated, this is an important issue to note when examining these ethnographies, since considerable culture change had undoubtedly occurred by 1850 among the Native American survivors of California. Nonetheless, the enormous value of the ethnographies done under Kroeber's guidance is obvious. The major sources for this DUDEK 19 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project review include Lowell John Bean and Florence C. Shipek (1978), Kroeber (1925), Philip S. Sparkman (1908), and Raymond White (1963). Carlsbad is situated within the ethnohistoric territory of the Native American Luisefio cultural group, according to Kroeber's study (1925; Rivers 1993). This group is a Shoshonean-speaking population that has inhabited what are now northern San Diego, southern Orange, and southwestern Riverside counties through the ethnohistoric period into the twenty-first century. The boundary between the ethnohistoric Native American Luisefio and Juanefio cultural groups lie within Camp Pendleton according to Kroeber's study (1925: 636; Rivers 1993). Both the Luisefio and Juanefio cultural groups are Takic-speaking populations, each having their own respective dialect, that have inhabited what is now northern San Diego, southern Orange, and southwestern Riverside counties through the Ethnohistoric period into the twenty-first century. They are linguistically and culturally related to the Gabrielino, Cupefio, and Cahuilla, and represent the descendants of local Late Prehistoric populations. They are generally considered to have migrated into the area from the Mojave Desert, possibly displacing the prehistoric ancestors of the Yuman- speaking Kumeyaay (lpai-Tipai) that lived directly to the south during Ethnohistoric times. Territorial distribution of ethnohistoric groups is of critical importance in reconstructing adaptations and ethnohistoric modeling for prehistoric interpretation. There is limited ethnohistoric information recorded about the Juanefio, and much of it is derived from accounts about the Luisefio (Kroeber 1925). The name Juanefio derives from association with the Mission San Juan Capistrano. There appear to be differences in dialect and culture between the Juanefio and Luisefio, despite their similarities. The limited territory ascribed to the Juanefio by Kroeber (1925: 636) extended from Aliso Creek on the north to the area between San Onofre and Las Pulgas drainages on the south, with the Pacific Ocean forming the western boundary and the crest of the Santa Ana Mountains forming the boundary on the east. Their neighbors to the north were the Gabrielino, and the Luisefio bordered them on the northeast, east, and south. There is, however, some controversy over the nature of the Juanefio as a group. Kroeber (1925: 636) recognized Juanefio language as a dialect of Luisefio, but treated the populations as separate groups. Constance Cameron (1987: 318) supports this interpretation based on archaeological evidence. Bean and Shipek (1978: 550), and White (1963: 91) treat the Juanefio as part of the Luisefio on the basis of cultural and linguistic similarities. For the purposes of this ethnohistoric discussion, the Juanefio are considered distinct from the Luisefio. The Uto-Aztecan inhabitants of northern San Diego County were called Luisefios by Franciscan friars, who named the San Luis Rey River and established the San Luis Rey Mission in the heart of Luisefio territory. Luisefio territory encompassed an area from roughly Agua Hedionda Creek on the coast, east to Lake Henshaw, north to Lake Elsinore, and west through San Juan Capistrano to the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Luisefio shared boundaries with the DUDEK 20 11409 October 2018 .. -. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Gabrielino and Serrano to the west and northwest, the Cahuilla from the deserts to the east, the Cupefio to the southeast, and the Kumeyaay to the south. All but the Kumeyaay (Ipai also known as Northern Dieguefio) are linguistically similar to the Luisefio, belonging to the Takic subfamily of Oto-Aztecan (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luisefio were organized into patrilineal clans centered on a chief, comprised of 25-30 people (Kroeber 1925), each of which had their own territorial land where food and other resources were collected (Sparkman 1908). Luisefio population estimates at the time of Spanish contact range from 3,000-4,000 (Kroeber 1925) to upwards of 10,000 (White 1963). In either case, the arrival of the Spanish undoubtedly decimated Native peoples through disease and changed living conditions (Bean and Shipek 1978). 2.3 Historic Period Francisco Ulloa, exploring the Pacific coast under orders from Heman Cortes, is reported to have stopped at the San Luis Rey River in 1540, marking the first contact between Europeans and the Luisefio, although the accuracy of his exploration is disputed (Garrahy and Weber 1971). Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, who is widely considered the first European to explore Alta California, sailed the coast through Luiseno territory in 1542, but is not reported to have landed. Spanish colonial settlement was initiated in 1769 with the founding of the first mission in San Diego by Father Junipero Serra. Father Juan Mariner and Father-Presidente Fermin Lasuen explored what would become northern San Diego County and western Riverside County in 1795 and 1797, respectively, in search of a location for another mission (Brigandi 1998). In 1798 Lasuen founded Mission San Luis Rey de Francia in the San Luis Rey Valley, which would become one of the largest and most prosperous missions in California (Brigandi 1998). Under Spanish control, the missions set out to convert local populations to Christianity and to expand the influence of the Spanish empire. To support the growing mission, numerous asistencias, or sub-missions, and ranchos were established throughout the territory at or adjacent to Luisefio villages. Following Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, secularization of the missions began in 1833 in order to tum over the large land holding to private citizens, including local Indians. Mission San Luis Rey was divided into six ranchos in 1835: Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Guajome, Agua Hedionda, Buena Vista, and Monserrate. Rancho Aqua Hedionda became the base of what makes up today's modem Carlsbad. In 1851, a group of Cahuilla and Cupefio Indians attacked American settlers in Warner's Hot Spring, hoping to unite Indian tribes and drive out the Americans (Bibb 1991 ). Led by Pablo Apis, DUDEK 21 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project the Luisefio of Temecula went to Mission San Louis Rey and remained out of the conflict (Bibb 1991). In 1852, the Treaty of Temecula (Treaty of Peace and Friendship) was signed, providing certain lands, horses, cattle, and other supplies to the Luisefio, Cahuilla, and Serrano in exchange for government control of the rest of their lands (Bibb 1991, Van Hom 197 4 ). This treaty, and 17 others in California, was rejected by the U.S. Senate later that year. In 1858, John Butterfield established the Butterfield Stage Route along the Southern Emigrant Trail, delivering mail from St. Louis to San Francisco (Cato 2000). The Butterfield route also provided an easier mode of transportation for settlers coming into Southern California (Van Horn 1974). The start of the Civil War shut down the Butterfield Stage Route after a short 3-year stint, as it passed through Confederate states. By the 1870s, ranching had become quite prosperous in the area (Van Horn 1974). In 1860, Francis Hinton hired Robert "Uncle John" Kelly as part owner and Major Domo of Rancho Aqua Hedionda. Kelly, originally from the Isle of Man, was a bit of a local legend and a well-known Rancher in the south west. This partnership would lead to Kelly's eventual ownership of the Rancho on Hinton's death in 1870 (Harmon 1961). Kelly granted a coastal right of way for the San Diego Railway which allowed for San Diego to be connected to all points north. This land along with the land of John Frazier would soon become popular train stops for fresh water on the routes north (Harmon 1967). The name Carlsbad came from the German immigrant Gerhard Schutte who came to the city in 1886 and dreamed of building "a town of gracious homes and small farms." Along with Samuel Church, Henry Nelson, and D.D. Wadsworth, Schutte formed the Carlsbad Land and Mineral Water Company which purchased all of Frazier's property plus 275 more acres (Harmon 1967). Frazier stayed on as superintendent of the new company's water holdings and worked to entice future residents to their land with the promotion of the mineral water. Support for the water's healing properties came with support from an Eastern laboratory with analyzed samples of the water and declared them to be chemically identical to those drawn from Well Number Nine in Karls bad, Bohemia. Wanting to make this connection to the famed European spa as strong as possible, the directors of the Carlsbad Land and Mineral Water Company named their town Carlsbad (Jones 1982). In the 1880's, a group of investors hearing aboutthe "Frasier Station Well," created the Carlsbad Land and Water Company by purchasing land from Frasier and adjoining unassociated lands (Harmon 1967). With this purchase the Town of Carlsbad was formed. The California land bust of the 1890's almost left the town abandoned, until the South Coast Land Company purchased most of the land and helped re-establish the commercial life of Carlsbad through additional wells and avocado groves (Harmon 1961 ). DUDEK 22 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Through the early 1900's and into the 1930's, Carlsbad continued to grow through the completion of the Highway 101, the relocation of the Army Navy Academy to the town, construction of the California Carlsbad Mineral Spring Hotel and the establishment of the Chamber of Commerce which provided the area with much needed stability and financial growth (Harmon 1961 ). Despite the large number of new businesses in the Carlsbad area, the city could not totally elude the effects of the national Depression. Buildings such as the First National Bank on Elm A venue, that opened as recently as the late 1920s, closed its doors for good and the recently homeless families of the city moved into the building for shelter. Perhaps not growing as fast as it did pre- 1929, Carlsbad did continue to grow despite the economic hardships which could be attributed in part to the sale of avocados. By the enc.l of the Depression, the Works Progress Administration paid one hundred men sixty cents an hour to build a drainage system in Carlsbad. One of the most significant developments from this period was the relocation of the Davis Military Academy to Carlsbad from Pacific Beach in 1936. With this came money for the local economy, which in tum helped shake off some of the impact from the Depression (Gutierrez 2002). Furthering the influx of military members and the capital that came with them was the move in 1942 of the U.S. Marine Corps to Rancho Santa Margarita to establish Camp Pendleton. Although the move wasn't all positive, the large amount of new military members and their families caused a severe housing crisis. There was a lack of rentable units which caused many military families to purchase their own homes. Additionally, local residents began to buy us vacant lots in order to construct low-cost rental cottages. By the end of WWII the population of Carlsbad was steadily rising and there was a growing dissatisfaction with San Diego County's administration for Carlsbad. It was the culmination of multiple small problems that caused many citizens to push for the formation of a local government ( Gutierrez 2002). Carlsbad residents were dissatisfied with their lack of locally controlled services including: no basic fire and police services, a declining water supply, lack of fire hydrants, and an antiquated sewage system built in 1929. The construction of a power plant by SDG&E was the primary reason for Carlsbad incorporating as a city, supplying enough tax revenue to justify having a city government (Orton 1994). In 1952 after much debate the City of Carlsbad was incorporated has continued to expand and grow into the modem day city (City of Carlsbad 2018). DUDEK 23 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 24 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 3 RESEARCH METHODS 3.1 Cultural Resources The cultural resource investigation consisted of a records search of the Project APE and a 1-mile radius around the Project at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC); initiation of correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Native American representatives; and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project APE. In addition to the SCIC records, the record search also examined the NRHP, Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE) and Historic Property Directory (HPD) lists, and historic maps. The pedestrian survey was performed by Dudek archaeologist Angela Pham and Saving Sacred Sites representative Kenny Teter, on September 28, 2018, using standard archaeological procedures and techniques that meet the Secretary of Interior's standards and guidelines for cultural resources inventory. Because a single family residence is located within the APE, the survey surrounding the residence was characterized by opportunistic survey. Landscaped areas and areas where soils were visible surrounding the home were inspected for artifacts. The area to the north of the home is undeveloped and characterized by dead grasses. In this area, survey transects were spaced five meters wide and oriented north-south. Throughout the survey area, the ground surface was examined for prehistoric artifacts ( e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of the current or former presence of structures or buildings ( e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historic artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials). Ground disturbances such as burrows, cut banks, and drainages were also visually inspected for exposed subsurface materials. All fieldwork was documented using field notes, digital photography, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with sub-meter accuracy, iPad technology with close- scale field maps, and aerial photographs. Location-specific photographs were taken using an Apple 3rd Generation iPad equipped with 8 MP resolution and georeferenced PDF maps of the Project APE. Accuracy of this device ranged between 3 meters and 10 meters. 3.2 Built Environment Resources A pedestrian survey and archival research were conducted to identify any potential built environment historical resources. The pedestrian survey was conducted on October 17, 2018, by Dudek architectural historians Kara R. Dotter, MSHP, and Nicole Frank, MSHP. The survey involved walking all portions of the Project site and documenting the Project site with detailed notes and DUDEK 25 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project photographs. One building was identified on the property: a one-story single-family residence with an attached garage, identified as 330 Chinquapin Avenue. Dudek documented the building's elevations, character-defining features, spatial relationships, and setting, and noted any observed alterations. The Project site was recorded and evaluated on the appropriate DPR Series 523 forms according to instructions by the California Office of Historic Preservation. DPR forms are included in Appendix C. During October 2018, a variety of archival resources were searched for information relating to the residence on the Project site. On October 19, 2018, Dudek obtained copies of all available building permits and records for the subject property for new construction, demolition, alteration, and addition via the City of Carlsbad online public records access. These documents were valuable in understanding the history of the property as a single-family residence and the amount of alterations done since the property's construction. Research was conducted at the San Diego Public Library for historic photographs, biographical information, and building history. In addition, several online resources were consulted, including newspaper archives, Sanborn maps, historic aerials, parcel maps, and historical U.S. Geological Survey maps. DUDEK 26 11409 October 2018 . ' Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 4 RESULTS This section details the results of the archival review and intensive pedestrian surveys. 4.1 Archival Research Dudek consulted historic topographic maps (earliest available from 1893) and aerial photographs to understand development of the Project site and surrounding properties. Historic aerial photographs and maps of the Project area were available for 1_938, 194 7, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1980, 1990, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 (NETR2018). The 1938, 1947, and 1953 historic photographs reveal that the entire Project APE was utilized for agriculture. The historic aerials reveal that the single family residence located on the Project APE was present prior to 1964; no structures are located within the northern portion of the Project APE. Historic photographs taken after the 1980s suggest that no additional large-scale developments have occurred within the surrounding area, and that the majority of the extant development had been completed by the 1990s (NETR 2018). One historic structure is located within the Project area. The single-family residence and attached garage was built in 1959 (San Diego County Assessor 2018); however, no original building permits were found. The following City of Carlsbad Building Permits (CCBPs) were found for the property: dining addition and garage alteration of transforming the garage to a family room and bedroom in 1976 (CCBP #76-311); replacement of water heater in 2007 (CCBP #CB070580); repair of electrical issues (CCBP #CB072724). Observed alterations to the house with unknown dates include the addition of security doors, replacement of windows, and addition of A/C units in windows. Research of all available city directories dating from 1965 to 1997 showed that the house was predominately owned and occupied by two people. The first was Fern Darling who occupied the house from 1965 until 1973 and was a retiree and financial officer of the Carlsbad Grandmothers Club. The next was Lew Irving Pritten who occupied the house from 1974 until 1995. Mr. Irving was an insurance investigator that ran for Carlsbad Unified School District Board in 1977. 4.2 SCIC Record Search As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the Project, Dudek conducted a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (SDSU) on October 2, 2018, of the Project APE and surrounding one-mile. Confidential Appendix A provides the results of the records search and a bibliography of prior cultural resources studies. DUDEI< 27 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 4.2.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies The SCIC records indicate that 58 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one-mile of the Project APE. None of the previous studies intersect the proposed Project APE. All 58 cultural resource studies are summarized below in Table 1. Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One-Mile of the Project APE SCIC Report Number Year Report Title SD-02691 1993 Historical/Archaeological Survey And Test Report For The Boyce Parcel Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California SD-03272 1996 Archaeological Survey And Test For The Huber Property, Carlsbad, California SD-03273 1996 Archaeological Survey And Test For The Cade Property, Carlsbad, California SD-01665 1987 Archaeological Study For 260 Acres South Of Agua Hedionda Lagoon SD-03329 1995 Negative Archaeological Survey Report For 11-Sd-5, R47.5/R48.5, 05910K SD-01752 1981 Carlsbad Boulevard: An Archaeological Survey Report Of The Right-Of-Way For Proposed Bridge And Street Improvements Between Tamarack Avenue And Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California SD-01638 1985 Resource Inventory Cultural Resources San Diego Coast State Beaches SD-01745 1987 Archaeological Survey Report For Minor Subdivisions 730 And 736 In Carlsbad, California SD-01055 1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program For Site W-131, Carlsbad. SD-01054 1983 Archaeological Survey And Test Of The Windsong Shores Property Sdi-10965. SD-01028 1986 Archaeological Test At Sdi-10478 Agua Hedionda Carlsbad, California SD-00716 1976 A Predevelopment Archaeological Resource Survey For The Agua Hedionda Lagoon North Shores Project SD-00535 1976 Oceanside Harbor And Navigation Project: Archaeological Survey Report SD-04111 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks And Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California DUDEK 28 Author/Com pany Gallegos & Associates Gallegos & Associates Gallegos & Associates Recon Caltrans New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. Department Of Parks And Recreation Dames & Moore Westec Services, Inc. Westec Services, Inc. Westec Services, Inc. Recon Dr. Larry L. Leach Larry Seeman Proximity to Project Site Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One-Mile of the Project APE SCIC Report Number Year Report Title SD-09361 2002 Archaeological Survey Report For The Phase I Archaeological Survey Along Interstate 5 San Diego County, Ca. SD-09382 2005 Extended Phase I For The Cannon Street Direct Access Ramp And Park-And-Ride Lot, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California SD-04806 1994 Historical/Archaeological Survey Report For The Moffatt Parcel Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California SD-04440 1993 Archaeological Survey Report For A Portion Of Adams Street Widening Project In The City Of Carlsbad, California SD-06629 1999 Historic Property Survey Report Oceanside To San Diego-Rail To Trail SD-08484 2003 Final Historic Property Survey Report ' SD-02694 1993 Archaeological Survey Report For A Portion Of Adams Street Widening Project In The City Of Carlsbad, California SD-09146 2004 Identification And Evaluation Of Historic Properties San Diego County Water Authority Seawater Desalination Project. In The Cities Of Carlsbad, Vista, And San Marcos, San Diego County, California SD-09362 2004 Archaeological Testing At Twelve Prehistoric Sites (Sdi-603, -628, - 4553,-6831,-6882, 10965,-12670, 13484, 15678, 15679, 15680) On The Central San Diego Coast, San Diego County, Ca. SD-09382 2005 Extended Phase I For The Cannon Street Direct Access Ramp And Park-And-Ride Lot, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California SD-09516 2005 The Cemeteries And Gravestones Of San Diego County: An Archaeological Study SD-09569 2004 Cultural Resource Monitor And Test Report For The Encina Power Plant Project Carlsbad, California SD-09571 2003 City Of Carlsbad Water And Sewer Master Plans Cultural Resource Background Study City Of Carlsbad, California SD-09575 2003 Cultural Resource Background Study For The North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer Maintenance Access Road Project City Of Carlsbad, California SD-09586 2003 Cultural Resource Survey And Test Program For The Carlsbad Sewer Line Project Carlsbad, California SD-10467 2005 Archaeological I Paleontological Monitoring Of Boring Activities San Diego Water Authority's Seawater Desalination Project Encina Power Station, City Of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Crm Tech Contract #1724 DUDEK 29 Author/Com pany Asm, Inc Asm Affiliates Gallegos And Associates Brian F. Mooney Associates Martin Rosen Martin D. Rosen Brain F. Mooney& Associates Crm Tech Asm Asm Affiliates David Caterino Gallegos & Associates Gallegos & Associates Gallegos & Associates Gallegos & Associates Crm Tech Proximity to Project Site Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One-Mile of the Project APE SCIC Report Number Year Report Title SD-10651 2007 An Archaeological Survey And Significance Evaluation For The Adams Street Subdivision Project SD-10847 Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, 400 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Ave.}, Carlsbad, California 92008 SD-11144 2007 Encina-Penasquitos Transmission Line Records Search SD-11177 2007 A Phase I Archaeological Assessment Of The Carlsbad Boat Club Project, City Of Carlsbad, Apn 206-200-06 SD-11224 2007 Encina East Stormwater Management Cultural Resources (Affinis Job No. 2244) SD-11269 -Santa Fe Depot -Carlsbad SD-11419 2007 Cultural Resource Records Search Results For T-Mobile Candidate Sd06919B (Tamarack Hoa}, 111 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California SD-11761 2007 Historic Property Survey Report, 1-5 North Coast Widening Project SD-12016 2004 Cultural Resource Survey For The Adams Street Property Carlsbad, California SD-12153 2009 Archaeological Resources Survey, Agua Hedionda Sewer And Lift Station, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California SD-12738 2009 Archaeological Survey Report: Carlsbad Double Track Project Control Point Carl (Mp 229.3) To Control Point Farr (Mp 231.7) North County Transit District Mainline San Diego County, California Caltrans District 11 SD-12693 2009 Historic Property Survey Report For The Proposed Construction Of A Second Mainline Track In The City Of Carlsbad By The North County Transit District SD-04483 1987 Historical Survey For The Carlsbad Union Church And The Gaus House, Carlsbad, California SD-13488 2011 Cultural Resources Investigation In Support Of Consultation For The Regional Beach Sand Ii Project San Diego County, California SD-13916 2012 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environemental Impact Statement SD-14615 2013 1-5 North Corridor Project Supplementals SD-14495 2013 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement And Section 4(F} Evaluation DUDEI< 30 Author/Com pany Brian F. Smith & Associates Asm Affiliates, Inc. Brian F. Smith And Associates Affinis The Carlsbad Historical Society Michael Brandman Associates Caltrans Gallegos & Associates Affinis Crm Tech Caltrans Westec Aecom Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Proximity to Project Site Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One-Mile of the Project APE SCIC Report -Author/Com Proximity to Number Year Report Title pany Project Site SD-14574 2012 Section 106 Consultation For Third Amendment To Naval Hospital United Outside Replacement, Camp Pendleton States Marine Corps SD-14757 2013 Request For Concurrence On "Section 106" Compliance And A State Water Outside Finding Of "No Historic Properties Affected" For Vista/ Carlsbad Resource Interceptor And Agua Hedionda Pump Station Replacement Project Control (Project) Board SD-14888 2013 Cultural Resource Records Search And Site Survey At&T Site Ace Outside Sd0272 Carlsbad Lagoon 4800 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, San Environment Diego County, California 92008 al, Lie SD-14757 2013 Request For Concurrence On "Section 106" Compliance And A State Water Outside Finding Of "No Historic Properties Affected" For Vista/ Carlsbad Resource Interceptor And Agua Hedionda Pump Station Replacement Project Control (Project) Board SD-14888 2013 Cultural Resource Records Search And Site Survey At&T Site Ace Outside Sd0272 Carlsbad Lagoon 4800 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, San Environment Diego County, California 92008 al, Lie SD-16300 2015 Letter Report: Ets 29398 -Cultural Resources Monitoring Report Glenny, Outside For The Encina Substation Bank 61 Addition, City Of Carlsbad, San Wayne Diego County, California -lo 7011102 SD-16127 2008 2007 Cultural Resources Treatment Plan North Coast Interstate 5 Caltrans Outside Corridor SD-16131 2013 Sixth Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (Hpsr): Revised Caltrans Outside Area Of Potential Effects (Ape) 1-5 North Coast Corridor SD-16219 2016 Cultural Resources Phase I Survey Report For The Terramar Aecom Outside Coastal Improvement Project Carlsbad, California SD-16764 2017 An Archaeological Survey And Significance Evaluation For The Brian F. Outside Klovanish Residence Project 4385 Adams Street, City Of Carlsbad, Smith And California Associates SD-16765 2016 An Archaeological Survey And Significance Evaluation For The Brian F. Outside Polzin Residence Project 4382 Adams Street, City Of Carlsbad, Smith And California Associates, Inc 4.2.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Twenty-one previously recorded cultural resources have been previously identified within one mile of the APE. None of these resources intersect the APE. These resources include 15 prehistoric DUDEK 31 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project resources, four historic resources, one multicomponent resource, and one built environment resource. The 21 previously recorded resources are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One-Mile of the Project APE Primary Trinomial Resource Number (CA·) Type P-37-SDl-006751 Prehistoric 006751 P-37-SDl-006831 Prehistoric 006831 P-37-SDl-010478 Prehistoric 010478 P-37-SDl-010965 Prehistoric 010965 P-37-SDl-013076 Prehistoric 013076 P-37-SDl-013089 Prehistoric 013089 P-37-SDl-014335 Prehistoric 015589 P-37--Historic 017443 P-37-SDl-013701 Prehistoric 019009 P-37-SDl-016885 Prehistoric 025440 P-37-SDl-017078 Prehistoric 025679 P-37-SDl-017411 Rrehistoric 026515 P-37-SDl-017414 Multi 026518 component P-37-SDl-017959 Prehistoric 027646 DUDEK Resource Recorded By and Year Description Outside of the Project APE Shell midden Foglia and Droessler (2016); Pallette (2006); Fanklin (1978); Pigniola and Mealer (1993) Prehistoric Laylaner (2003); O'Neil artifact scatter (2000); Franklin (1978) (shell, bone, stone) Shell midden Pigniola and Gallegos (1986); and associated stone artifacts Habitation site Laylander (2003); Gallegos (1988) Shell and lithic Eighmey and Boughton scatter (1993) Low density Strudwick ( 1993) shell midden Habitation site Schroth and Harris ( 1996) Santa Fe Unknown Railway Depot Habitation site Rosenberg (2006); Strudwick with shell and Gallegos (1994) midden Habitation site Smallwood (2005); Guerrero including stone and Tift (2003) tools and shell Low density Pallette (2004); Smallwood shell and lithic (2004) scatter Shell midden Unknown and cobble hearths Prehistoric and Ronald (1972) historic artifact scatter Habitation site Iversen (2006) with shell scatter 32 NRHP Eligibility Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Listed on NRHP Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Proximity to Project Site Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside 11409 October 2018 ... Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One-Mile of the Project APE Primary Trinomlal Rnource Rnource Recorded By and Year NRHP Proximity to Number (CA-) Tvne DescriDtlon Ellalbllltv Prolact Site P-37-SDl-017960 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Iversen (2006) Not evaluated Outside 027647 P-37--Prehistoric Isolated Iversen (2006) Not eligible Outside 027649 retouched flake P-37-SDl-018613 Prehistoric Very sparse Sarkara (2007) Not evaluated Outside 028496 lithic scatter P-37-SDl-029981 Historic-Built Three eight Hope (2005) Not eligible Outside 029981 Environment duplexes P-37--Historic Offshore marine Foglia and Droessler (2015); Not eligible Outside 032953 oil Terminal Whtte (2013) associated with the Encina Power Station P-37-SDl-21129 Historic Dump site Foglia and Droessler (2015); Not evaluated Outside 033636 dating to 1940s Turner (2014) P-37-SDl-21807 Historic Trash burning Foglia and Droessler (2015) Not evaluated Outside 035622 area 4.3 Cultural Resources Field Survey Results No cultural resources were identified during the survey. Ground visibility was poor (0-20%) in areas where the ground surface was obscured by pavement and landscaping. Ground visibility was excellent in areas that consisted of exposed surface soils (100%). The southeastern half of the Project APE is completely developed with a single family residence and associated landscaping. The northwestern half of the Project APE is characterized by dead grasses and some ornamental cacti and succulents along the northwestern border. Modern debris ( e.g. refuse and concrete fragments) is strewn throughout this area. Evidence of past grading activities (e.g. plow scars and soils movement) were also observed within the northwestern half of the Project APE. Photographs documenting field conditions are presented in Figures 2 and 3. DUDEK 33 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 2 View of undeveloped area northwest of the existing residence, view to southeast (lMG_l 150). DUDEK 34 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 3 View of single-family home, view to northwest (JMG_l 137). 4.4 Built Environment Field Survey Results The subject property is a Ranch-style, single-family residence built in 1959 that faces Chinquapin Avenue. The one-story building has a complex roof form: a C-shaped section with a hipped roof, a side-gable section that projects approximately four feet northeastward, and a low-sloping shed roof infilling the open section of the C-shaped roof. The attached garage is rectangular with a side- gabled roof. The roofs have deep overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails and are clad with composition shingles. The exterior walls of the main house are clad with wide, wavy-bevel wood siding and a battered rough-cut stone veneer wainscoting along the foundation. The garage is clad with wood in a modified board-and-batten pattern. The main entrance to the house is located on the southeast elevation and is sheltered beneath two comers of the roofs overhang. The southeast (main) elevation presents as three non-consecutive sections. The farthest left section projects approximately ten feet from the main building and features two tripartite windows with a center fixed pane flanked by two sliding panes, directly below the windows is a course of rough- cut beveled stone veneer which extends approximately three feet from the building's foundation (Figure 4). The second section is accessed by one concrete step which leads to the building's main entrance of a single-leaf metal security door surrounded by rough-cut stone veneer with no DUDEK 35 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project coursing. The last section is recessed approximately 20 feet from the central section and features an unglazed single-leaf entry door leading into the garage, and two single-car width garage doors that face out towards the driveway (Figure 5). The site's northeast elevation presents as four non-consecutive sections. The farthest left on the main building features a single horizontal sliding window with an A/C unit and a course of rough- cut beveled stone veneer below. The middle section projects approximately four feet, is accessed by a poured concrete walkway with a single step, and features a centered exterior gable-end chimney, with angled wood detailing below the gable. The chimney is comprised of vertically- scored red brick laid in a common bond, detailed at the gable with three pieces of what appears to be tan-colored fossiliferous limestone, each measuring approximately 2 feet long and one brick course high (Figure 6). A matching brick wood-store extends approximately four feet to the right of the chimney base and features a hinged wood door that slopes away from the building. Flanking either side of the chimney are two sliding windows. The third section displays a single angled bay window with four fixed panes in the center flanked by a single fixed pane on either side. The last section represents the gable end of the attached garage that projects about 16 feet from the main body of the house; below the gable end is a section of corrugated plastic (Figure 7). The northwest (rear) elevation presents as two non-consecutive sections: a broad expanse of wood board-and-batten cladding unrelieved by fenestration, representing the rear of the garage, and a recessed section, corresponding to the main house, that has a single-leaf door with a metal security door and a tripartite window with a center fixed pane flanked by two sliding panes (Figures 8 and 9). The southwest elevation presents as two non-continuous sections. The first section represents the gable end of the attached garage, recessed about 15 feet from the main body of the house, with a section of corrugated plastic below the gable end. Approximately two-thirds of the second section is obscured from view by a wood privacy fence, with the visible third containing one horizontal sliding window; the southwest side of the house is accessed by a concrete walkway with a single step from the street (Figure I 0). Observed alterations include: • Replacement windows • Addition of security doors • Replacement garage doors • AIC units in windows • Apparent addition infilling space on southwest elevation DUDEK 36 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 4 Southeast and northeast elevations, view to west (DSC00436). Figure 5 Southeast elevation of the garage, view to northwest (DSC00479). 37 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 6 Northeast elevation, view to southwest (IMG_8991). 38 11409 October 2018 DUDEI< Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 7 Northeast elevation of the garage, view to northwest (DSC00480). 39 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 8 Northwest elevation, view to southeast (IMG_9025). 40 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure 9 Breezeway between main building and garage, view to southwest (IMG_8984). DUDEI< 41 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Figure IO Visible portion of southwest elevation, view to northeast (DSC00514). 42 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 5 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of four criteria. The CRHR was designed to reflect the same criteria and integrity as those identified for the NRHP. Therefore, the NRHP and CRHR significance evaluations are presented together. 5.1 NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance In consideration of the project site's history and requisite integrity, Dudek finds the property not eligible for designation in the NRHP or CRHR based on the following significance evaluation and in consideration of national and state eligibility criteria: Criterion All: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Extensive research indicates that the subject property is not associated with events that made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue 1s recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1. Criterion B/2: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Extensive archival research also indicates that the subject property is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue is recommended not eligible for listing under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2. Criterion C/3: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The single-family residence and attached garage located on the subject property are modest examples of Ranch-style architecture. Ranch-style buildings, particularly single-family residences, are ubiquitous throughout Southern California, due in large part to the population boom following WWII. Several alterations to the building are evident, including replacing windows, enclosing the garage to create additional living space, and infilling the originally open section of the C-shaped building on the southwest elevation. Additionally, no information regarding the architect or builder was found. As such, the building lacks sufficient distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; does not represent the work of a master; does not possess high artistic DUDEI< 43 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project values; nor is it a potential contributor to an historic district. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue is recommended not eligible for listing under NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3. Criterion D/4: That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The parcel has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important to understanding prehistory or history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue is recommended not eligible for listing under NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4. 5.2 City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory Statement of Significance In consideration of the Project site's history and requisite integrity, Dudek finds the property not eligible for designation in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory based on the following significance evaluation and in consideration of local eligibility criteria: It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. Extensive research indicates that the subject property neither exemplifies nor reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. Extensive archival research also indicates that the subject property is not identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect The single-family residence and attached garage located on the subject property are modest examples of Ranch-style architecture. Ranch-style buildings, particularly single-family residences, are ubiquitous throughout Southern California, due in large part to the population boom following WWII. Several alterations to the building are evident, including replacing windows, enclosing the garage to create additional living space, and infilling the originally open section of the C-shaped DUDEK 44 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project building on the southwest elevation. Additionally, no information regarding the architect or builder was found. As such, the building lacks sufficient distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; does not represent the work of a master; does not possess high artistic values; nor is it a potential contributor to an historic district. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological, or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value. The parcel has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information of scientific value. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. It is a geographically definable area with a concentration of buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. The subject property does not belong to a definable area with a concentration of buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. 5.3 Integrity Discussion Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance, and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Furthermore, integrity must be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility (NPS 2002). Location: The single-family residence and attached garage remain in their same location as they were originally constructed, and therefore 330 Chinquapin Avenue retains integrity of location. DUDEI< 45 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Design: Although elements of the original design remain, alterations to the building indicate that 330 Chinquapin A venue retains diminished integrity of design. Setting: The property was originally sited in a low-density semi-rural setting with single-family residences and small agricultural fields nearby. The current setting is one of moderate to high- density suburban with single-and multiple-family residences and no more agricultural fields. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue no longer retains integrity of setting. Materials: Noted alterations, including window replacements, conversion of the garage to living space, and an addition to the southwest elevation, indicate that 330 Chinquapin A venue retains diminished integrity of materials. Workmanship: The noted alterations, including window replacements, conversion of the garage to living space, and an addition to the southwest elevation, indicate that 330 Chinquapin Avenue no longer retains integrity of workmanship. Feeling: Although the subject property still serves as a single-family residence, the alterations and change in surrounding land use indicate that 330 Chinquapin Avenue no longer retains integrity of feeling. Association: The subject property still serves as a residence within a coastal community, but the change in surrounding land use negatively impacts its original association with a semi-rural area. Therefore, the integrity of association is diminished. In summary, 330 Chinquapin A venue maintains integrity of location, has diminished integrity of design, materials, and association, and no longer has integrity of setting, workmanship, or feeling. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin A venue does not maintain enough integrity to be eligible for listing at the national, state, or local levels. 5.4 Summary As discussed above, the subject property is recommended not eligible under any criteria for listing at the national, state, or local levels. Similarly, the property does not requisite integrity to be eligible for listing under any registration program. As such, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is not considered an historical resource under CEQA. DUDEI< 46 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 6 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Dudek's Phase I cultural resources inventory of the Project indicates that there is low sensitivity for intact subsurface archaeological deposits. No archaeological resources were identified within the Project APE or the immediate vicinity during the intensive pedestrian survey and the SCIC records search did not identify cultural resources within the Project APE or adjacent to the Project. The NAHC indicated that Native American resources were present but did not specify if these resources are located within the Project APE. Any intact archaeological resources that may have been previously located within the APE were likely disturbed by past agricultural activities and residential construction. No further archaeological efforts or mitigation, including archaeological construction monitoring, are recommended to be necessary in support of implementation of the Project. The following recommendations are suggested in the unlikely event that cultural resources or human remains are encountered during construction activities. 6.1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the Project, all construction work occurring within I 00 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA or Section 106 of the NHPA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted. 6.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097 .98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the MLD from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. DUDEI< 47 11409 October 2018 DUDEI< Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 48 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 7 REFERENCES Abbott, P.L. 1999. The Rise and Fall of San Diego: 150 Million Years of History Recorded in Sedimentary Rocks. San Diego, California: Sunbelt Publications. Basgall, M.E., and M.C. Hall. 1993. Archaeology of the Awl Site, CA-SBR-4562, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Los Angeles, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Basgall, M.E., L. Johnson, and M. Hale. 2002. An Evaluation of Four Archeological Sites in the Lead Mountain Training Area, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. Twentynine Palms, California: Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center. Basgall, M.E. and K.R. McGuire. 1988. The Archaeology ofCA-INY-30: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Southern Owens Valley, California. Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation. Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978. "Luisefio." In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, edited by W.C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Bibb, L.E. 1991. "Pablo Apis and Temecula." Journal of San Diego History 37(4):256-271. Bos~ana, G. 1846. "Chinigchinich; A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California." In Life in California, by Alfred Robinson, 227-341. New York: Wiley & Putnam. Brigandi, P. 1998. Temecula: at the Crossroads of History. Encinitas, California: Heritage Media Corporation. Byrd, B.F. and S.N. Reddy. 2002. "Late Holocene Adaptations along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms." In Cultural Complexity on the California Coast: Late Holocene Archaeological and Environmental Records, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, 41-62. Los Angeles, California: University of California Los Angeles Press. Cameron, C. 1987. Archaeological Investigations on the Rancho San Clemente, Orange County, California. Fullerton, California: Archaeological Research Facility, California State University. Cato, K. 2000. "Historical Settlement of the Temecula Valley." In Geology and Enology of the Temecula Valley, Riverside County, California, edited by B.B. Birnbaum and K. Cato. San Diego, California: San Diego Association of Geologists. DUDEK 49 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project City of Carlsbad. 2018. "History." City of Carlsbad. Accessed October 3, 2018. http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/police/inside/history.asp. Davis, E.L., ed. 1979. The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Science Series 29. ECORP. 2017. "Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines." The City of Carlsbad, California. Pages, P. 1937. A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California (1775). Translated by H.I. Priestly. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Gallegos, D.R. 1987. San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. Gallegos, D.R. 1991. "Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago." In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by T.L. Jones, 205-216. Davis, California: Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. 10. Garrahy, S.T. and D.J. Weber. 1971. "Francisco de Ulloa, Joseph James Markey, and the Discovery of Upper California." California Historical Quarterly 50(1):73-77. Geiger, M., and C. W. Meighan. 1976. As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813-1815. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library. Grenda, D.R. 1997. "Site Structure, Settlement Systems, and Social Organization at Lake Elsinore, California." PhD dissertation; Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Griset, S. 1996. Southern California Brown Ware. PhD dissertation; Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Gutierrez, Susan Schnebelen. 2002. Windows on the Past: An Illustrated History of Carlsbad, California. Virginia Beach, Virginia: Walsworth Publishing Company. Hale, M. 2001. Technological Organization of the Millingstone Pattern in Southern California. Master's thesis; CSU Sacramento, California. Hale, M. 2009. San Diego and Santa Barbara: Socioeconomic Divergence in Southern California. PhD dissertation; University of California, Davis. DUDEK 50 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Harmon, John. 1961. "History of Carlsbad." Electronic document, Accessed October 3, 2018, https://www.carlsbadhistoricalsociety.com/Carlsbad%20Historical%20Society _ files/ AHi storyofCarlsbad.htm. Harmon, Jack. 1967. A History of Carlsbad. Carlsbad: Friends of the Library. Carlsbad Historical Society. Harrington, J.P. 1934. "A New Original Version ofBoscana's Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4). Washington, D.C. Hector, S. 2007. Archaeological Investigations at University House Meeting Center and Chancellor Residence, CA-SDI-4669 (SDM-W-12), University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. Prepared by ASM Affiliates. Heizer, R. 1978. "Introduction." In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 1-6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, edited by W.C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Heizer, R. and K.M. Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley. Jones, Marje Howard. 1982. Seekers of the Spring: A History of Carlsbad. Carlsbad, California: Carlsbad Friends of the Library. Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Laylander, D. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias, 1533-1825. Salinas, California: Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 4 7. Minnich, R.A. 2007. "Climate, Paleoclimate, and Paleovegetation." In Terrestrial Vegetation of California, Third Edition, edited by M.G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A.A. Schoenherr, 43-70. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC). 2018. Historic aerial photographs dates 1938, 1947, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1980, 1990, 1994, 1997,2002,2003,2005,2009,2010, 2012, and 2014. Accessed October 24, 2018. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer# NPS (National Park Service). 2002. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. DUDEK 51 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Accessed October 30, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34_8.htm Orton, Charles Wesley. 1994. Carlsbad: The Village by the Sea. Encinitas, California: Heritage Publishing Company. Pigniolo, A.R. 2004. "Points, Patterns, and People: Distribution of the Desert Side-Notched Point in San Diego." Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 14:27-39. Powers, S. 1877. Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. III. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley, 1976. Rivers, B. 1993. "The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historical Background." In The Cultural Resources of the Pendleton Coast District. Manuscript on file at SAIC, Santa Barbara, California. Rogers, M.J. 1929. "The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau." American Anthropologist 31 :454-467. Rogers, M.J. 1945. "An Outline ofYuman Prehistory." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(1):167-198. Sparkman, P.S. 1908. "The Culture of the Luisefio Indians." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8: 187-234. True, D.L. 1966. "Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. True, D.L. 1980. "The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978." Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1-39. Van Horn, K. 1974. "Tempting Temecula: The Making and Unmaking of a Southern California Community." Journal of San Diego History 20:26-38. Vinje & Middleton Engineering 1998. Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation Parcels A, B and C Adams Street, Carlsbad, California. Vinje & Middleton Engineering. Escondido, California. Wallace, W.J. 1955. "A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11 :214-230. DUDEK 52 11409 October 2018 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project Warren, C.N. 1964. Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Warren, C.N. 1968. "Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast." In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, 1-14. Portales, New Mexico: Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Warren, C.N., G. Siegler, and F. Dittmer. 2004. "Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods." Chapter 2 in Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. Prepared by ASM Affiliates. Encinitas, California: ASM Affiliates. White, R. 1963. "Luisefio Social Organization." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48 :91-194. DUDEI< 53 11409 October 2018 DUDEI< Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54 11409 October 2018 .. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project 8 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE (NADB) INFORMATION Authors: Firm: Erica Nicolay MA, RP A; Angela Pham, MA, RPA; Brad Comeau, MSc, RP A Dudek Project Proponent: Ultra-Unit Architectural Studio Report Date: October 2018 Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Development Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Type of Study: Archaeological Inventory Resources: NIA USGS Quadrangle: San Luis Rey, California 7.5', T12S, R4W, Section 7 Area: 0.6 acres Permit Numbers: NA Type of Study: Cultural Resource Phase I Survey Key Words: Pedestrian survey; Negative; City of Carlsbad; CRHR; CEQA; DUDEK 55 11409 October 2018 DUDEK Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Avenue Development Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 56 11409 October 2018 APPENDIX A Confidential Cultural Resources Record Search . . APPENDIX B Native American Correspondence STATE OE CALffQBHIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Cultural and Environmental Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone: (916) 373-3710 Email: nahc@nahc.ca.gov Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov Twitter: @CA_NAHC October 10, 2018 Angela Pham DUDEK VIA Email to: apham@dudek.com Edmund G Brown Jr Governor RE: 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. Dear Ms. Pham: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Katy.Sanchez@nahc.ca.qov. Sincerely, Katy Sanchez Associate Environmental Planner Attachment La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Thomas RodriQuez, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Pauma valley ,CA 92061 (760) 742-3771 (760) 742-3779 Fax Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, PhD, THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Rd. Pala ,CA 92059 sgaughen@palatribe.com (760) 891-3515 {760) 742-3189 Fax Pala Band of Mission Indians Robert H. Smith, Chairperson 12196 Pala Mission Road Pala ,CA 92059 rsmlth@palatribe.com (760) 891-3500 {760) 742-3189 Fax Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet AQuHar, Chairperson P.O. Box369 Pauma Valley ,CA 92061 (760) 742-1289, Ext. 303 (760) 742-3422 Fax Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Bennae Calac P.O. Box369 Pauma valley ,CA 92061 bennaecalac@aol.com (760) 617-2872 (760) 742-3422 Fax Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contacts List 10/10/2018 Luiseno Luiseno Cupeno Luiseno Cupeno Luiseno Luiseno Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Charles Devers, Cultural Committee P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma valley ,CA 92061 (760) 742-1289, Ext. 317 (760) 7 42-3422 Fax Pechanga Band of Luisel'lo .Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula ,CA 92593 pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov . (951) 770-6306 {951) 506-9491 Fax Pechanga Band of Lulsel'lo Indians Mark Macarro. Chairman P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula ,CA 92593 epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov (951) 770~ {951) 695-1778 Fax Pechanga Band of Luisel'lo Indians Garv DuBois, Director of Cultural Resources Department, P.O. Box 2183 Luisefto Temecula . ,CA 92593 gdubols@pechanga-nsn.gov (951) 770-6302 (951) 695-1778 Fax Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Cultural Resources Planni11A Specialist P.O. Box 1477 Lulseno Temecula ,CA 92593 eozdll@pechanga-nsn.gov (951 )-770-6313 (951) 695-1778 Fax Thl9 11st 18 cwrent as of the date of thla document and le baaed on the lnfonnatlon available to the Commlealon on the data It w• produced. Dletrlbutlon of thl• ll•t doee not relieve any penon of statutory rNponaiblllty • deftned in Section TOSO.I of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Publlc Resources Code. or Section 5097.98 of the Publlc Resoun:ea Code. Thia list is only applicable for contacting local Native American Tribes for the propoeed: 330 Chlnquapln Resldentlal Project, City of Cartabad, San Diego County. I 1 . Rincon Band of Luisetlo Indians Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contacts Ust 10/10/2018 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Jim McPherson, Tribal Historic Pres. Officer Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department 1 West Tribal Road Luiseno Valley Center ,CA 92082 vwhlpple@rinoontribe.org (760) 749-1051 (760) 749-5144 Rincon Band of Luisel\o Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson 1 West Tribal Road Valley Center ,CA 92082 Luiseno bomazzettl@aol.com (760) 749-1051 (760) 749-5144 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Tribal Council 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista ,CA 92081 cjmojado@slrmissionindlans.org (760) 724-8505 . (760) 72-4-2172 Fax San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Cultural Department 1889 Sunset Drive Lulseno Vista ,CA 92081 Cupeno cjmojado@slrmisslonindians.org (760) 724-8505 (760) 724-2172 Fax Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Carrie Garcia, Cultural Resources Manaaer P. 0. Box 487 Luiaeno San Jacinto ,CA 92581 Cahuilla carrieg@soboba-nsn.gov (951) 654-2765 (951) 654-4198 Fax P.O. BOX487 Luiseno San Jacinto ,CA 92581 Cahullla jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov (951) 663-5279 (951) 654-4198 Fax Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Scott Cozart. Chairman P. 0. Box487 San Jacinto ,CA 92583 (951) 654-2765 (951) 654-4198 Lulseno Cahuilla Thia la.t 18 current u of the date of this document and Is baaed on the lnfonnaaon available to the Commission on the data It ·_wn produced. Distribution of this 11st doN not relieve any person of statutory reeponalbllity u defined In Section 7050.5 of the H•lth and Safety Code,Section 9017.N of the Public Resowcea Code, or Section 5097.N of the Public RNOUl'CN Code. This 11st 18 only applicable for contacting local Native American Trlb• for the proposed: 330 Chfnquapln Resldentlal Project, City of Carlaba.d, San Diego County. DUDEI< October 15, 2018 Mr. Temet Aguilar, Chairperson Pauma & Yuima Reservation P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Subject: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Aguilar, The 330 Chinquapin Residential Project is being proposed in the City of Carlsbad, California. The proposed residential development project will demolish an existing residence and develop seven multi-family units on an approximately 1,464 square foot (0.03 acres) parcel. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 12S/ Range 4W -Section 7; San Luis Rey Quadrangle, CA 1 :24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1 ). As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project, Dudek contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project area. The NAHC emailed a response on October 10, 2018, which stated that the SLF search did identify the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area, please contact me directly at (760) 479-4855 or at apham@dudek.com within 30 days ofreceipt of this letter. Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, City of Carlsbad, in writing (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)). Re: Jriformation Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Respectfully, Angela Pham, M.A., RP A Archaeologist DUDEK Phone: (760) 479-4855 Email:apham@dudek.com Attachments: Figure I. Records Search Area Map DUDEK 2 Job No.: 11409 October 2018 Re: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California 0 0 Study Area :::: 1 Mile Buffer DUDEI< ! DUDEK ------- !i I I i~ ! I i i l I 3 Records Search Job No.: 11409 October 2018 DUDEI< 605 TH1RC ',TREET t.N(.1N11.:...~,. (P.UF"ORNI.A. 92014 T 7f-.0'H} 5147 T 8(!!.l4!'i0 !814 F 1lJl)t321)!t,~ October 15, 2018 Mr. Gary DuBois, Director of Cultural Resources Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Subject: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. DuBois, The 330 Chinquapin Residential Project is being proposed in the City of Carlsbad, California. The proposed residential development project will demolish an existing residence and develop seven multi-family units on an approximately 1,464 square foot (0.03 acres) parcel. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 12S/ Range 4W -Section 7; San Luis Rey Quadrangle, CA 1 :24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1 ). As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project, Dudek contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project area. The NAHC emailed a response on October 10, 2018, which stated that the SLF search did identify the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area, please contact me directly at (760) 479-4855 or at apham@dudek.com within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, City of Carlsbad, in writing (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)). Re: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Respectfully, Angela Pham, M.A., RP A Archaeologist DUDEK Phone: (760) 479-4855 Email:apham@dudek.com Attachments: Figure 1. Records Search Area Map DUDEK 2 Job No.: 11409 October 2018 DUDEI< ',_'.,f October 15, 2018 Ms. Bennae Calac, Tribal Council Member Pauma Valley Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Subject: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Ms. Calac, The 330 Chinquapin Residential Project is being proposed in the City of Carlsbad, California. The proposed residential development project will demolish an existing residence and develop seven multi-family units on an approximately 1,464 square foot (0.03 acres) parcel. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 12S/ Range 4W -Section 7; San Luis Rey Quadrangle, CA 1 :24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1 ). As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project, Dudek contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project area. The NAHC emailed a response on October 10, 2018, which stated that the SLF search did identify the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area, please contact me directly at (760) 479-4855 or at apham@dudek.com within 30 days ofreceipt of this letter. Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, City of Carlsbad, in writing (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)). Re: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Respectfully, Angela Pham, M.A., RP A Archaeologist DUDEK Phone: (760) 479-4855 Email :apham@dudek.com Attachments: Figure J. Records Search Area Map DUDEK 2 Job No.: 11409 October 2018 .• DUDEI< MA.IN C)fflC:f 605 Tfil~C ·0,TREET October 15, 2018 Mr. Scott Cozart, Chairperson Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box487 San Jacinto, CA 92583 Subject: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Cozart, The 330 Chinquapin Residential Project is being proposed in the City of Carlsbad, California. The proposed residential development project will demolish an existing residence and develop seven multi-family units on an approximately 1,464 square foot (0.03 acres) parcel. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 12S/ Range 4W -Section 7; San Luis Rey Quadrangle, CA 1 :24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1 ). As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project, Dudek contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project area. The NAHC emailed a response on October 10, 2018, which stated that the SLF search did identify the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area, please contact me directly at (760) 479-4855 or at apham@dudek.com within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, City of Carlsbad, in writing (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)). Re: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Respectfully, Angela Pham, M.A., RP A Archaeologist DUDEK Phone: (760) 479-4855 Email:apham@dudek.com Attachments: Figure 1. Records Search Area Map DUDEK 2 Job No.: 11409 October 2018 DUDEI< t1,t.1N OFFICE 605 THIP D \ TREET c~,C1NITAS. CALIFORNll\ 9)0:4 October 15, 2018 Mr. Charles Devers, Cultural Committee Pauma & Yuima Reservation P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Subject: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Devers, The 330 Chinquapin Residential Project is being proposed in the City of Carlsbad, California. The proposed residential development project will demolish an existing residence and develop seven multi-family units on an approximately 1,464 square foot (0.03 acres) parcel. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 12S/ Range 4W -Section 7; San Luis Rey Quadrangle, CA 1 :24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1 ). As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project, Dudek contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project area. The NAHC emailed a response on October 10, 2018, which stated that the SLF search did identify the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area, please contact me directly at (760) 479-4855 or at apham@dudek.com within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, City of Carlsbad, in writing (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)). Re: Information Request for the 330 Chinquapin Residential Project, City of Carlsbad, California Respectfully, Angela Pham, M.A., RP A Archaeologist DUDEK Phone: (760) 479-4855 Email:apham@dudek.com Attachments: Figure 1. Records Search Area Map DUDEK 2 Job No.: 11409 October 2018 APPENDIX C Department of Parks and Recreation Site Form .. State of California ~ The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code Primary# HRI# Trinomial NRHP Status Code Reviewer Date Page _1_ of 14 *Resource Name or#: (Assigned by recorder) 3 3 0 Chinguapin Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: □ Not for Publication ■ Unrestricted *a. County San Diego and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Luis Rey Date 1997 (rev. 2000) T _; R __ , _□of □ of Sec _, ___ B.M. c. Address 330 Chinguapin Avenue City Carlsbad Zip 92008 :-c---::-~=-----=-d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11 S, 4 6814 6 mE/ 3 6 677 4 5 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel#, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 206-020-11-00 Lat, Long: 33 .147992, -117.341556 Originally part of the Aqua Hedionda land grant. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The property is a Ranch-style, single-family residence built in 1959 that faces onto Chinquap in Avenue. The one-story building has a complex roof form: a C-shaped section with a hipped roof, a side-gable section that projects approximately four feet northeastward, and a low-sloping shed roof infilling the open section of the C-shaped roof . The attached garage is rectangular with a side-gabled roof. The r oofs have deep overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails and are clad with composition shingles. The exterior walls of the main house are clad with wide, wavy-bevel wood siding and a battered rough-cut stone veneer wainscoting along the foundation . The garage is clad with wood in a modified board-and-batten pattern. The main entrance to the house is located on the southeast elevation and is sheltered beneath two corners of the roof's overhang . .----------------------------------, *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List Photograph or Drawing ,, ,1ru•1 • "" objeci,.J I *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") attributes and codes),_ ... H,._P2=-----,,.....,.,..,,..- *P4. Resources Present: ■ Building □ Structure □ Object □ Site □ District □ Element of District D Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession#) Looking northwest, 10/17/2018, IMG 9053 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: ■ Historic □ Prehistoric D Both 1959 (County Assessor) *P7. Owner and Address: Luanne C. Galizia 330 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 *PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kara R. Dotter, MSHP and Nicole Frank, MSHP Dudek 605 Third St . Encinitas, CA 92024 *P9. Date Recorded: 10/30/2018 *P10.Survey Type: (Describe) Pedestrian Nicolay, E., MA; A. Pham, MA, RPA ; N. Frank, MSHP; K.R. Dotter, MSHP; and B. Comeau, MSc , RPA. 2018 . Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 330 Chinquapin Development Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Prepared by Dudek. October 2018 . *Attachments: □NONE ■Location Map ■Continuation Sheet ■Building, Structure, and Object Record □Archaeological Record □District Record □Linear Feature Record □Milling Station Record □Rock Art Record □Artifact Record □Photograph Record □ Other (List): DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required infonnation State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP Primary# HRI# Trinomial Page 2 of 14 *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) 330 Chinguapin Avenue SanLuis Rey USGS 7 .5' quad *Scale: 1:24,000 •Dateofmap: 1997 (rev. 2000) *Map Name: 0 ---~-.,_,,_ ___ I I ll I 0 I ~ . ----.-------·-·-· 'b - -------------71' 1----.. -L O Project Boundary rol.RCE USGS 7 S-Mrute Sene, San LUIS Rey Ouadmgle Du DE K • o..___1,ooo _ __,2o'f.., CPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) i Ji ' I . I l l AGURE1 Project Location 3ll ~&J'ln Aw R8:ildforiial Proiec! *Required information State of California ~ The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) 330 Chinguapin Avenue Page _3_ of 14 *NRHP Status Code ---'-6Z"'------ B1 . Historic Name: _n-'-/_a ___________________________________ _ B2. Common Name: __ n-'-/_a __________________________________ _ B3. Original Use: single-family residence B4. Present Use: single-family residence *85. Architectural Style: _R"""a_n--'c--'-h _______________________________ _ *86. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built 1959 . Dining addition and garage alteration of transforming the garage to a family room and bedroom in 1976 (CCBP #76-311); replacement of water heater in 2007 (CCBP #CB070580); repair of electrical issues (CCBP #CB072724). Observed alterations to the house with unknown dates include the addition of security doors, replacement of windows , and addition of A/C units in windows *87. Moved? ■No □Yes □Unknown Date: *88. Related Features: --------- Original Location: ________ _ B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown -------------------*810. Significance: Theme n/a Area _n..;../_a ________ _ Period of Significance n/ a Property Type n/ a Applicable Criteria n/ a (Discuss importance in terms of historical or archictural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Historic Context Francisc o Ulloa, exploring the Pacific coast under orders from Hernan Cortes, is reported to have stopped at the San Luis Rey River i n 1540, marking the first contact between Europeans and the Luiseno, although the accuracy of his exploration is disputed (Garrahy and Weber 1971). Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, who is widely considered the first European to explore Alta California, sailed the coast through Luiseno territory in 1542, but is not reported to have landed. Spanish colonial settlement was initiated in 1769 with the founding of the first mission in San Diego b y Father Junipero Serr a . Father Juan Mariner and Father-Presi dente Fermin Lasuen explored what would become northern San Diego County and western Riverside County in 1795 and 1797, respectively, in search of a location for another missi on (Br i gandi 1998). In 1798 Lasuen founded Mission San Luis Rey de Francia in the San Luis Rey Valley, which would become one of the largest and most prosperous missions in California (Brigandi 1998). (see continuation sheet) B 11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *812. References: See continuation sheet B13. Remarks: *814. Evaluator: Kara R. Dotter, MSHP *Date of Evaluation: October 30, 2018 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 5238 (9/2013) *Required information State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _4_ of _1_4 _ •pJa. Description: (con't) Primary# HRI# Trinomial The southeast (main) elevation presents as three non-consecutive sections. The farthest left section projects approximately ten feet from the main building and features two tripartite windows with a center fixed pane flanked by two sliding panes, directly below the windows is a course of rough-cut beveled stone veneer which extends approximately three feet from the building's foundation (Figure 1). The second section is accessed by one concrete step which leads to the building's main entrance of a single-leaf metal security door surrounded by rough-cut stone veneer with no coursing. The last section is recessed approximately 20 feet from the central section and features an unglazed single-leaf entry door leading into the garage, and two single-car width garage doors that face out towards t he driveway (Figure 2). The site's northeast elevation presents as four non-consecutive sections. The farthest left on the main building features a single horizontal sliding window with an A/C unit and a course of rough-cut beveled stone veneer below. The middle section projects approximately four feet, is accessed by a poured concrete walkway with a single step, and features a centered exterior gable-end chimney, with angled wood detailing bel ow the gable . The chimney is comprised of vertically-scored red brick laid in a common bond, detailed at the gable with three pieces of what appears to be tan-colored fossiliferous limestone, each measuring approximately 2 feet long and one brick course high (Figure 3). A matching brick wood-store extends approximately four feet to the right of the chimney base and features a hinged wood door that slopes away from the building . Flanking either side of the chimney are t wo sliding windows. The third section displays a single angled bay window with four fixed panes in the center flanked by a single fixed pane on either side. The last section represents the gable end of the attached garage that projects about 16 feet from the main body of the house; below the gable end is a section of corrugated plastic (Figure 4). The northwest (rear) elevation presents as two non-consecutive sections : a broad expanse of wood board-and-batten cladding unrelieved by fenestration, representing t he rear of the garage, and a recessed section, corresponding to the main house, that has a single-leaf door with a metal security door and a tripartite window with a center fixed pane flanked by two sliding panes (Figures 5 and 6). The southwest elevation presents as two non-continuous sections. The first section represents the gable end of the attached garage, recessed about 15 feet from the main body of the house, with a section of corrugated plastic below the gable end. Approximately two-thirds of the second section is obscured from view by a wood privacy fence , with the visible third containing one horizontal sliding window; the southwest side of the house is accessed by a concrete walkway with a single step from the street (Figure 7). Observed alterations include : Replacement windows Addition of security doors Replacement garage doors A/C units in windows Apparent addition infilling space on southwest elevation OPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) •Required infonnation , • State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinguapin Avenue Page_5_of _1_4 _ Primary# HRI # Trinomial Figure 1 Southeast and northeast elevations, view to west (DSC00436). Figure 2 Southeast elevation of the garage, view to northwest (DSC00479). DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required infonnation State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinguapin Avenue Page _6_ of_14_ Primary# HRI# Trinomial Figure 3 Northeast elevation, view to southwest (IMG_8991). DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) • • *Required infonnation • State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chi nq uapin Avenue Page _7_ of_14_ Primary# HRI# Trinomial Figure 4 Northeast elevation of the garage, view to northwest (DSC00480). DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required infonnation State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _8_ of_1_4 _ Primary# HRI# Trinomial Figure 5 Northwest elevation, view to southeast (IMG_9025). DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required infonnation • . . .. State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _9_ of _14_ Primary# HRI# Trinomial Figure 6 Breezeway between main building and garage, view to southwest (IMG_8984) . DPR 523L (Rev.1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required infonnation State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _1Q_ of ___li_ Primary# HRI# Trinomial Figure 7 Visible portion of southwest elevation, view to northeast (DSC00514). *810.Significance: (con't) Under Spanish control, the missions set out to convert local populations to Christianity and to expand the influence of the Spanish empire . To support the growing mission, numerous asistencias, or sub-missions, and ranchos were established throughout the territory at or adjacent to Luiseno villages. Following Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, secularization of the missions began in 1833 in order to turn over the large land holding to private citizens, including local Indians. Mission San Luis Rey was divided into six ranchos in 1835: Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Guajome, Agua Hedionda, Buena Vista, and Monserrate. Rancho Aqua Hedionda became the base of what makes up today's modern Carlsbad. In 1851, a group of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians attacked American settlers in Warner's Hot OPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information • -. • • State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinguapin Avenue Page _1_1_ of _1_4 _ Primary# HRI# Trinomial Spring, hoping to unite Indian tribes and drive out the Americans (Bibb 1991). Led by Pablo Apis, the Luisefio of Temecula went to Mission San Louis Rey and remained out of the conflict (Bibb 1991). In 1852, the Treaty of Temecula (Treaty of Peace and Friendship) was signed, providing certain lands, horses , cattle, and other supplies to the Luisefio, Cahuilla, and Serrano in exchange for government control of the rest of their lands (Bibb 1991, Van Horn 1974). This treaty, and 17 others in California, was rejected by the U.S . Senate later that year. In 1858, John Butterfield established the Butterfield Stage Route along the Southern Emigrant Trail, delivering mail from St. Louis to San Francisco (Cato 2000). The Butterfield route also provided an easier mode of transportation for settlers coming into Southern California (Van Horn 1974). The start of the Civil War shut down the Butterfield Stage Route after a short 3-year stint, as it passed through Confederate states . By the 1870s, ranching had become quite prosperous in the area (Van Horn 1974). In 1860, Francis Hinton hired Robert "Uncle John" Kelly as part owner and Major Domo of Rancho Aqua Hedionda. Kelly, originally from the Isle of Man, was a bit of a local legend and a well-known Rancher in the south west. This partnership would lead to Kelly's eventual ownership of the Rancho on Hinton's death in 1870 (Harmon 1961 ). Kelly granted a coastal right of way for the San Diego Railway which allowed for San Diego to be connected to all points north. This land along with the land of John Frazier would soon become popular train stops for fresh water on the routes north (Harmon 1967). The name Carlsbad came from the German immigrant Gerhard Schutte who came to the city in 1886 and dreamed of building "a town of gracious homes and small farms ." Along .with Samuel Church, Henry Nelson, and D.D . Wadsworth, Schutte formed the Carlsbad Land and Mineral Water Company which purchased all of Frazier's property plus 275 more acres (Harmon 1967). Frazier stayed on as superintendent of the new company's water holdings and worked to entice future residents to their land with the promotion of the mineral water. Support for the water's healing properties came with support from an Eastern laboratory with analyzed samples of the water and declared them to be chemically identical to those drawn from Well Number Nine in Karlsbad, Bohemia . Wanting to make this connection to the famed European spa as strong as possible, the directors of the Carlsbad Land and Mineral Water Company named their town CARSBAD (Jones 1982). In the 1880's, a group of investors hearing about the "Frasier Station Well," created the Carlsbad Land and Water Company by purchasing land from Frasier and adjoining unassociated lands (Harmon 1967). With this purchase the Town of Carlsbad was formed. The California land bust of the 1890' s almost left the town abandoned, until t h e Sou th Coast Land Company purchased most of the land and helped re-establish the commercial life of Carlsbad through additional wells and avocado groves (Harmon 1961). Through the early 1900' sand into the 1930' s, Carlsbad continued to grow through the completion of the Highway 101, the relocation of the Army Navy Academy to the town, construction of the California Carlsbad Mineral Spring Hotel and the establishment of the Chamber of Commerce which provided the area with much needed stability and financial growth (Harmon 1961). Despite the large number of new businesses in the Carlsbad are·a, the city could not totally elude the effects of the national Depression. Buil dings such as the First National Bank on Elm Avenue, that opened as recently as the late 1920s, closed its doors for good and the recently homeless families of the city moved into the building for shelter . Perhaps not growing as fast as it did pre-1929, Carlsbad did continue to grow despite the economic hardships which could be attributed in part to the sale of avocados. By the end of the Depression, t he Works Progress Administration paid one hundred men sixty cents an hour to build a drainage system in Carlsbad. One of the most significant developments from this period was the relocation of the Davis Military Academy to Carlsbad from Pacific Beach in 1936 . With this came money DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required infonnation State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _12_ of _14_ Primary# HRI # Trinomial for the local economy, which in turn helped shake off some of the impact from the Depression (Gutierrez 2002). Furthering the influx of military members and the capital that came with them was the move in 1942 of the U.S. Marine Corps to Rancho Santa Margarita to establish Camp Pendleton. Although the move wasn't all positive, the large amount of new military members and their families caused a severe housing crisis. There was a lack of rentable uni ts which caused many military families to purchase their own homes. Additionally, local residents began to buy us vacant lots in order to construct low-cost rental cottages. By the end of WWII the population of Carlsbad was steadily rising and there was a growing dissatisfaction with San Diego County's administration for Carlsbad. It was the culmination of multiple small problems that caused many citizens to push for the formation of a local government (Gutierrez 2002). Carlsbad residents were dissatisfied with their lack of locally controlled services including: no basic fire and police services, a declining water supply, lack of fire hydrants , and an antiquated sewage system built in 1929. The construction of a power plant by SDG&E was the primary reason for Carlsbad incorporating as a city, supplying enough tax revenue to justify having a city government (Orton 1994). In 1952 after much debate the City of Carlsbad was incorporated has continued to expand and grow into the modern day city (City of Carlsbad 2018). SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of four criteria. The CRHR was designed to reflect the same criteria and integrity as those identified for the NRHP . Therefore, the NRHP and CRHR significance evaluations are presented together. NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance In consideration of the project site's history and requisite integrity, Dudek finds the property not eligible for designation in the NRHP or CRHR based on the following significance evaluation and in consideration of national and state eligibility criteria : Criterion All: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Extensive research indicates that the subject property is not associated with events that made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history . Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1. Criterion B/2: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Extensive archival research also indicates that the subject property is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past . Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2 . Criterion C/3 : That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction . The single-family residence and attached garage located on the subject property are modest examples of Ranch-style architecture . Ranch-style buildings , particularly single-family residences, are ubiquitous throughout Southern California, due in large part to the population boom following WWII. Several alterations to the building are evident, including replacing windows, enclosing the garage to create additional living space, and infilling the originally open section of the C-shaped building on the southwest elevation. Additionally, no information regarding the architect or builder was found . As such, the building lacks sufficient distinctive characteristics of a type , period, or method of construction; does not represent the work of a master; does not possess high artistic values; nor is it a potential contributor DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information • . . ; ... . • State of California t, Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _1_3 _ of_14_ Primary# HRI# Trinomial t o an historic district. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing under NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3. Criterion D/4: That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The parcel has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important to understanding prehistory or history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligibl e for listing under NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4. City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory Statement of Significance In consideration of the project site's history and requisite integrity, Dudek finds the property not eligible for designation in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory based on the following significance evaluation and in consideration of local eligibility criteria: It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, econ omic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. Extensive research indicates that the subject property neither exempl ifies nor reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political , aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. Extensive archival research also indicates that the subject property is not identified with persons or events significant in local , state, or national history. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under t his criterion . It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed b uilder, designer, or architect. The single-family residence and attached garage located on t h e sub ject property are modest examples of Ranch-style architecture . Ranch-style buildings, particularly single-family residences, are ubiquitous throughout Southern California, du e in l arge part to the population boom following WWII . Several alterations to the building are evident, including replacing windows , enclosing the garage to create additional l iving space , a nd infilling the originally open section of the C-shaped building on the southwest elevation. Additionally, no information regarding the architect or builder was found. As such, the bu ilding lacks sufficient distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; does not represent the work of a master; does not possess high arti stic values; nor is it a potential contributor to an historic district. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not e l igible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological, or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scienti fic value. The parcel has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information of scientific value . Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion . It is a geographically definable area with a concentration of buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design , setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the i mprovements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. The subject property does not belong to a definabl e area with a concentration of buildings , structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required infonnation State of California ~ Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: 330 Chinquapin Avenue Page _14_ of _1_4 _ Primary# HRI# Trinomial improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion . Integrity Discussion Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance, and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance . Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials , workmanship, feeling, and association. Furthermore, integrity must be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility (NPS 2002). Location: The single-family residence and attached garage remain in their same location as they were originally constructed, and therefore 330 Chinquapin Avenue retains integrity of location . Design: Al though elements of the original design remain, alterations to the building indicate that 330 Chinquapin Avenue retains diminished integrity of design. Setting: The property was originally sited in a low-density semi-rural setting with single-family residences and small agricultural fields nearby. The current setting is one of moderate to high-density suburban with single-and multiple-family residences and no more agricultural fields . Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue no longer retains integrity of setting. Materials: Noted alterations, including window replacements , conversion of the garage to living space, and an addition to the southwest elevation, indicate that 330 Chinquapin Avenue retains diminished integrity of materials. Workmanship : The noted alterations, including window replacements, conversion of the garage to living space, and an addition to the southwest elevation, indicate that 330 Chinquapin Avenue no longer retains integrity of workmanship. Feeling: Although the subject property still serves as a single-family residence, the alterations and change in surrounding land use indicate that 330 Chinquapin Avenue no longer retains integrity of feeling. Association : The subject property still serves as a residence within a coastal community, but the change in surrounding land use negatively impacts i ts original association with a semi-rural area. Therefore, the integrity of association is diminished. In summary, the subject property maintains integrity of location, has diminished integrity of design, materials, and association, and no longer has integrity of setting, workmanship, o:t feeling. Therefore, 330 Chinquapin Avenue does not maintain enough integrity to be eligible for listing at the national, state, or local levels. Therefore , 330 Chinquapin Avenue is recommended not eligible under all criteria for listing at the national, state, or local levels, nor does it maintain enough integrity to be eligible for listing at the national, state, or local levels. ~ DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information