HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2022-0003; FPC RESIDENTIAL - SB 330; HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT; 2022-11-01
Historical Resources Technical Report
FPC Residential Project,
City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California
NOVEMBER 2022
Prepared for:
H.G. FENTON COMPANY
7577 Mission Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92108
Contact: Ryley Webb, Land Planning and Entitlements Manager
Prepared by:
Andrew Bursan, MCRP;
and Sarah Corder, MFA
38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Andrew Bursan, MCRP
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
14183 ii NOVEMBER 2022
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Management Summary .................................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description and Location .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Background Research ...................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 SCIC Record Search ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Building Development and Archival Research ................................................................................... 11
3 Historic Context ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Historical Overview of the City of Carlsbad ........................................................................................ 13
3.2 History of Buildings within the Project site ........................................................................................ 16
4 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 19
4.3 Built Environment Field Survey Result ............................................................................................... 19
5 Significance Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 NRHP/CRHR Statement of Significance ............................................................................................ 25
5.2 City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory Statement of Significance ....................................... 26
5.3 Integrity Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 27
6 Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 29
6.1 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 29
7 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
TABLES
1 Reports Intersecting Project site ...................................................................................................................... 11
2 Historic Built Environment Findings ................................................................................................................. 29
FIGURES
1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................................ 3
2 Project site ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
3 A photo looking northward at the largely undeveloped Ponto neighborhood in March of 1965. ................ 15
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 iii NOVEMBER 2022
4 Looking northeast at the Project site from Ponto Drive near the property’s southwest corner. ........................ 16
5 Office Building 1, East and north elevations, view to northwest (DSC00087). ............................................. 21
6 Office Building 2, South and east elevations, view to northwest (DSC00113). ............................................ 21
7 Storage Buildings, East and north elevations, view to west (DSC00163). .................................................... 22
APPENDICES
A Preparer’s Qualifications
B Department of Parks and Recreation Form Set
14183 iv NOVEMBER 2022
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
RPO County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
ATSF Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe
BNSF Burlington, Northern, Santa Fe
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 v NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14183 vi NOVEMBER 2022
Management Summary
Dudek was retained by H.G. Fenton Company to prepare a Cultural Resources Survey Report for the FPC Residential
Project (Project), an 86-unit residential development consisting of a combination of two- and three-story
rowhomes, townhomes, and triplexes in Carlsbad, California. This report includes the results of a California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search; intensive-level survey of the proposed Project site
and its vicinity by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; development of
an appropriate historic context for the Project site; and recordation and evaluation of one built environment
resource with buildings over 45 years old for historical significance and integrity in consideration of National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and local designation criteria
and integrity requirements. This report was prepared in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5 for historical resources and all applicable local guidelines and regulations.
A CHRIS records search was completed by staff at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) on January 31,
2022. While previous investigations overlap the Project site, none of the properties on the Project site were
mentioned in the reports; and no cultural resources were identified within the Project site as a result of the
overlapping studies.
The built environment survey was conducted on February 4, 2022. The survey was done on foot and involved
surveying properties within or immediately adjacent to the Project site and recording all buildings and
structures with notes and photographs. For the purposes of this Project, the Project site is the location of the
FPC Residential Project and properties within it (Figure 2, Project Site Map). The Project site includes three
adjacent parcels:
▪ 7290 Ponto Drive (APN: 214-160-25-00), six storage buildings constructed in 1974
▪ 7200 Ponto Drive (APN: 214-16- 28-00), no buildings
▪ 7294 Ponto Drive (APN: 214-171-11-00), two vacant office buildings (Office Building 1 and Office
Building 2) constructed circa 1963 and 1966
Eight (8) total buildings over 45 years of age are located on the Project site (two vacant office buildings and six
storage buildings) and were evaluated for historical and architectural significance as a single property due to the
Project site’s shared history first as a concrete mixing plant and later as a storage facility.
After research and evaluation, the Project site does not appear eligible under any NRHP, CRHR, or City of
Carlsbad cultural resource designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and
architectural merit. Therefore, neither of the two properties in the Project site are considered historical
resources for the purposes of CEQA.
As a result of Dudek’s extensive archival research, field survey, record search, and property significance
evaluations, no historical resources were identified within the Project site, nor were any adjacent cultural resources
identified that could be indirectly impacted by proposed Project activities. The finding for built environment cultural
resources for the proposed Project under CEQA is No Impact. As the proposed Project would have no impact on
historical resources, no further study is required.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 vii NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14183 1 NOVEMBER 2022
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description and Location
Project Description
The Project proposes to redevelop a 4.68-acre site consisting of three parcels (APNs 214-160-25, 214-160-28, and
214-171-11) that are currently occupied by a self-storage facility (eight total buildings) and junkyard. The existing
building on the Project site would be demolished. The Project proposes to construct 86 residential units consisting
of a combination of rowhomes, townhomes, and triplexes. The rowhomes and townhomes will be 3-story and the
triplexes will be 2-story. The mix of units consists of eight 2-bedroom units, 40 3-bedroom units, and 38 4-bedroom
units. The Project will include 15% of the units (13) as affordable to low-income and will utilize a density bonus. The
Project will include 197 parking spaces with 2 internal spaces per unit and 25 guest parking spaces.
Site improvements consist of an internal primary arterial street, dog park, and additional open space. Existing dry
utilities will be undergrounded and new water and stormwater connections will be made to existing facilities on
Ponto Drive.
Off-site improvements consist of curb and gutter along Ponto Road and Ponto Drive. An additional right-of-way
dedication may be considered for the extension of Ponto Drive east along the southern property line if it is
determined to be necessary.
Project Location
The Project site is located at 7290 Ponto Drive in Carlsbad, California, which serves as the primary address. The
Project site consists of three parcels (APNs 214-160-25, 214-160-28, and 214-171-11) and is currently occupied
by a self-storage facility (eight total buildings) and a former junkyard. Eight (8) total buildings over 45 years of age
are located on the Project site (two vacant office buildings and six storage buildings) and were evaluated for
historical and architectural significance as a single property due to the Project site’s shared history first as a
concrete mixing plant and later as a storage facility. The Project site is bound by Ponto Drive to the south, Cape Rey
Carlsbad Beach Hotel parking lot to the north, Ponto Road to the west, and the Burlington, Northern, Santa Fe
(BNSF) Railroad tracks to the east. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single-family one-story residences to
the west, a hotel with a parking lot to the north, and open space to the south and east. The Project site is roughly
180 yards east of the Pacific Ocean, about half a mile west of I-5, and half a mile north of the Batiquitos Lagoon
(Figure 2, Project site).
1.2 Project Personnel
Dudek Architectural Historian Andrew Bursan, MCRP, prepared this report and associated property significance
evaluations. Architectural historian Nicole Frank, MSHP conducted a survey of the Project site on February 4, 2022.
This report was reviewed for quality assurance/quality control by Historic Built Environment Lead Sarah Corder,
MFA. Resumes for all key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 2 NOVEMBER 2022
1.3 Regulatory Context
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:
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.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 3 NOVEMBER 2022
Figure 1 Regional Location
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 4 NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 5 NOVEMBER 2022
Figure 2 Project site
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 6 NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 7 NOVEMBER 2022
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 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the 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, from substantial adverse change”
(California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly
developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated
below. According to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically
significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s
history and cultural heritage.
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents
the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be
considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its
historical importance (see 14 CCR 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 in the NRHP are automatically listed in 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.
California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of
archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
▪ California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.”
▪ California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 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 an historical resource.
▪ California Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.”
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 8 NOVEMBER 2022
▪ 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.
▪ 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
examples 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).
More specifically, 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
21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(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 5024.1(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 15064.5(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 15064.5(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 15064.5(b)(1); California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5(b)(2) states the significance of an 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 of Historical Resources; 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 5020.1(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 of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for
purposes of CEQA.
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a Project site contains any “historical
resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 9 NOVEMBER 2022
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency
may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in
an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required
(California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an
archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the
current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there
is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact
(California Public Resources Code section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a
non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (California Public Resources Code
Section 21074(c), 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native
American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98.
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
(ECORP 2017). The General Plan includes guidelines to help revitalize the historic Barrio and Village
neighborhoods. The General Plan also 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-1. Recognize, protect, preserve, and enhance the city’s diverse heritage.
Policy 7-P.1. 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.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 10 NOVEMBER 2022
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 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 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, workmanship, feeling, and/or
association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each
individual improvement.
14183 11 NOVEMBER 2022
2 Background Research
2.1 SCIC Record Search
Dudek conducted a records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) for the Project site and a one-
mile search buffer on January 31, 2022. The records search revealed that 64 previous cultural resources studies
have been completed within one mile of the Project site. Of the 64 studies, seven of these previous studies intersect
the current Project site and are listed in Table 1 below. These studies include a regional historic preservation study,
a cultural resources background study, three cultural resource inventories, a cultural constraints study, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The records search also failed to indicate any historic built environment
resources within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. The records search is presented in its entirety in the
archaeological report prepared by Dudek in 2022 and titled Negative Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the
Ponto Townhomes Project, City of Carlsbad, California.
Table 1. Reports Intersecting Project site
Report Number Authors Date Title
SD-01984 WESTEC Services,
Inc.
1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study
SD-07250 Gallegos &
Associates
1998 Cultural Resource Survey for the Carlsbad
Boulevard Realignment Project, City of Carlsbad,
California
SD-09361 ASM, Inc. 2002 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I
Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5 San
Diego County, CA
SD-09571 Gallegos &
Associates
2003 City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans
Cultural Resource Background Study, City of
Carlsbad, California
SD-05904 City of San Diego 1994 Mitigated Negative Declaration Group Job No. 506
SD-15018 Laguna Mountain
Environmental, Inc
2014 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
Leucadia Wastewater District B2 Force Main
Replacement Project, City of Carlsbad, California
SD-18575 Dustin Keeler and
Sherri Gust
2014 Cultural Constraints for the Batiquitos Lagoon
Double-Track Project, Cities of Carlsbad and
Encinitas, San Diego County, California
2.2 Building Development and Archival Research
Building development and archival research were conducted for the Project site in an effort to establish a thorough
and accurate historic context for the significance evaluations, and to confirm the building development history of
the Project site and associated parcels.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 12 NOVEMBER 2022
City of Carlsbad Public Records Access Website
Dudek obtained digitized building permits from the City of Carlsbad Public Records Access website on February 5,
2022 for the Project site. Permits were only available for the year 1974 for the storage buildings (7290 Ponto Drive,
APN: 214-160-25-00) but no permits were found for the office buildings on the east end of the Project site (7294
Ponto Drive, APN: 214-171-11-00). Dudek reviewed all available permits, and all information obtained from the City
of Carlsbad was used in the preparation of the historic context and significance evaluations.
San Diego County Assessor
Dudek obtained assessor data for the Project site on February 4, 2022. This assessor data gave information about
construction dates and current owners for properties on the Project site.
Carlsbad City Library
Dudek contacted the Carlsbad City Library on February 15, 2022, and on the same day library staff emailed Dudek
historic background information on the Ponto neighborhood of Carlsbad as well as historic photos of the Project
site. Staff performed city directory research to identify prior property owners for the Project site but no listings were
found. All available information obtained from the library was used in the preparation of the historic context and
significance evaluations.
Historical Newspaper Review
Dudek reviewed historical newspapers from Carlsbad and surrounding cities in an effort to understand the
development of the City of Carlsbad and the Project site. These documents were used in the preparation of the
historic context and significance evaluations.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
A review of historical Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps covering the City of Carlsbad was conducted as
part of the archival research on the Project site from the years 1925 and 1929 but research revealed there was no
Sanborn coverage for the Project site (Sanborn Map Company 1925, 1929).
Topographic Maps and Historical Aerial Photographs
Dudek consulted historic topographic maps (earliest available from 1893) and aerial photographs to understand
the development of the Project site and surrounding properties. A review of historical aerial photographs was
conducted as part of the archival research effort for the following years: 1947, 1953, 1963, 1964, 1967, 1975,
1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 (NETR 2022; UCSB 2022).
Section 3.2, History of Buildings within the Project site, provides a write-up using this information.
Carlsbad Historic Surveys from 1980 and 1990
Dudek review the 1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study by Westec Services, Inc. and the 1990 Cultural
Resources Survey by Roth and Associates, but no cultural resources on or near the Project site were documented
in the surveys.
14183 13 NOVEMBER 2022
3 Historic Context
3.1 Historical Overview of the City of Carlsbad
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. 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 Cupeño Indians attacked American settlers in Warner’s Hot Spring, hoping to unite
tribes and drive out the Americans (Bibb 1991). Led by Pablo Apis, the Luiseño of Temecula went to Mission San
Louis Rey and did not participate in 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 Luiseño, 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 southwest. 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 development of Carlsbad was initiated by 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, Schutte and the directors of the Carlsbad
Land and Mineral Water Company named their town Carlsbad (Jones 1982).
In the 1880s, 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 1890s 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).
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 14 NOVEMBER 2022
Through the early 1900s and into the 1930s, Carlsbad continued to grow through the completion of 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 a 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 Avenue, which opened around the late
1920s, closed its doors for good, and 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, 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 turn helped shake off some of the impacts
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 was not 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 vacant lots in order to construct low-cost rental cottages. By the end of World War II, the population of
Carlsbad was steadily rising and there was 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).
In the 1950s, 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
(constructed in 1929). The construction of a power plant by SDG&E was the primary reason for Carlsbad's
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).
Ponto Neighborhood History
The Project site is located in an area of southwestern Carlsbad known as the Ponto neighborhood, half a mile
north of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The neighborhood consists of a 1.2-mile strip of land abutting the northern
bound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard to the west and parallels with South Carlsbad State Beach. Originally called
La Costa, the area first developed with homesteads in the late 1870s (Fetzer 2005). By the 1880s, the area
developed as an agricultural community with a post office, railroad station, and rod and gun club (none of
which currently exist). The area was renamed Ponto in 1919. It remained an agricultural outpost with very
limited growth through most of the twentieth century and has never numbered more than 100 residents since
recorded settlement in the area (Westec 21-22).
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 15 NOVEMBER 2022
Early agriculture in the area was devoted to grain crops until irrigated orchards began to be developed in the area
in the 1920s. It is unclear what crops, if any, were grown in the Project site (Westec 23). Ponto Drive historically
had few commercial businesses but did have two popular bars in the 1940s: the Bombshelter and Noah’s Ark,
which served military men stationed in the area. By the post-World War II era, the long-neglected region developed
a small collection of semi-industrial businesses like a metal fabrication shop, a firewood storage lot, and junkyards.
In addition, roughly six single-family dwellings were developed just west of the Project site on Ponto Road. The
formerly named Ponto Beach site half a mile to the west of the Project site was renamed South Carlsbad Beach
State Park in 1965 (Citizen 1988). Beginning in the early 1960s, the western end of the Project site served as the
location for the San Diego Consolidated Co. concrete mixing plant with the current office buildings on the Project
site serving as offices to the plant. It appears the plant stop functioning by 1969, when Dale Schreiber purchased
the property which he later turned into a storage facility in 1974, reusing the existing two office buildings from the
former concrete plant. In 1972, the neighborhood was officially annexed into the City of Carlsbad, but it had little
impact on increasing development. As of 1988, the area had a population of 30 residents, and it appears little
Figure 3. A photo looking northward at the largely undeveloped Ponto neighborhood in March of 1965. The photo
was taken roughly 170-yards south of the Project site along a now realigned section Ponto Drive with the San
Diego Consolidated Co. concrete mixing plant seen far in the background (Carlsbad City Library 1965).
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 16 NOVEMBER 2022
residential development has been added since that time. The construction of the Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach Hotel
in 2012, just north of the Project site, stands as the only major addition to the Ponto neighborhood since at least
the 1970s (San Diego Union-Tribune 2015).
3.2 History of Buildings within the Project site
Although topographic maps for the area date to 1893, the Project site is not depicted on these maps, and the present
alignment of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad (now BNSF tracks), which runs diagonally to the east
end of the Project site, do not appear on topographic maps until 1949. The earliest historic aerial image from 1947
reveals the Project site as undeveloped land which may have been associated with a dwelling located directly to the
northwest (which no longer exists). Ponto Drive to the west of the Project site had not been developed and Carlsbad
Road appears in its current configuration but only as a two-lane road. The ATSF Railroad line runs to the east in its
current north-south alignment and does not appear on prior topographic maps. By 1953, the Project site still appears
vacant, but the dwelling northwest of the Project site was demolished to make way for two, no longer extant single-
family residences along Ponto Drive, which was a dirt road at the time (NETR 2022; UCSB 2022).
Figure 4. Looking northeast at the Project site from Ponto Drive near the property’s southwest corner. Office Building 1
and San Diego Consolidated Co. concrete plant are visible in the background (Carlsbad City Library 1965).
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 17 NOVEMBER 2022
The 1963 aerial map shows the existing Office Building 1 at the center of the Project site, which appears to have
been the office for the San Diego Consolidated Co. concrete mixing plant. Research found little information on the
history of the mixing plant in Ponto, which operated from roughly the early 1960s to 1969. The company functioned
as a San Diego-area supplier of mixed concrete and had headquarters at Stadium Way and Friars Road in San
Diego (Chula Vista Star-News 1971). The 1963 map also shows the footprint of the square-shaped concrete plant
with a conveyor belt on the east end of the property near the ATSF Railroad tracks. To the west, the single-family
properties situated between Ponto Drive and Ponto Road begin to take on their current configuration and the two
single-family dwellings that appeared in 1953 had been demolished. By the 1967 aerial image, the Project site had
a second small office building (Office Building 2) about 25-feet south of Office Building 1. In addition, both Ponto
Drive and Ponto Road appear to be paved and in their current configuration by 1967. In a 1975 aerial, the Project
site included six new storage buildings that appear in their current configuration on the west end of the property.
Building permits indicate that owner Dale Schreiber completed construction of the storage units (CBP #74 54-60).
Although information on Schreiber is limited, research found that he has been a business owner and resident in
the Ponto Area since the 1970s. Rancho Santa Fe Engineering designed the storage buildings and research
indicates that the firm mainly operated in the 1970s and did light industrial design work that was limited to San
Diego County (NETR 2022; UCSB 2022).
Aerial imagery indicates that The San Diego Consolidated Co. concrete mixing plant had been removed from the
Project site by 1975, but both office buildings remained. Since 1975, the footprint of buildings within the Project
site has remained unchanged, but the property to the north was developed as a parking lot for the Cape Rey
Carlsbad Beach Hotel in 2012. It appears the northwest corner of the Project site has been used as a junkyard
property with no buildings since at least the 1990s, but this portion of the Project site is now clear of debris. Since
2012, the Project site and surrounding area have experienced little physical change (NETR 2022; UCSB 2022).
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 18 NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14183 19 NOVEMBER 2022
4 Field Survey
4.1 Methods
An intensive-level survey and archival research were conducted to identify any potential built environment historical
resources on the Project site. The survey was conducted on February 4, 2022, by Dudek architectural historian
Nicole Frank, MSHP. The survey involved walking all portions of the Project site and documenting the Project site
with detailed notes and photographs. Eight total buildings were surveyed on the Project site including two vacant
office buildings on the eastern end of the Project site and six storage buildings clustered together on the west side
of the Project site. Dudek documented the buildings’ elevations, character-defining features, spatial relationships,
and setting, and noted any observed alterations.
4.2 Results
The Project site contains eight buildings over 45 years old that were identified as requiring recordation and evaluation
for historical significance. The Project site was evaluated as a single property with three APNS: 214-160-25-00, 214-16-
28-00, and 214-171-11-00). Eight (8) total buildings over 45 years of age are located on the Project site (two vacant
office buildings and six storage buildings) and were evaluated for historical and architectural significance as a single
property due to the Project site’s shared history first as a concrete mixing plant and later as a storage facility.
This Project site is described and evaluated for historical and architectural significance in Section 5. Significance
Evaluations. A State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 (DPR) form for the Project site is
in Appendix B. Department of Parks and Recreation Form Set.
Properties Evaluated
▪ Parcel 1: 7290 Ponto Drive (APN: 214-160-25-00), six storage buildings constructed 1974
▪ Parcel 2: 7200 Ponto Drive (APN: 214-16-28-00), no buildings (undeveloped)
▪ Parcel 3: 7294 Ponto Drive (APN: 214-171-11-00), two vacant office buildings constructed, circa 1963 and 1966
4.3 Built Environment Field Survey Result
Property Description
The Project site is located on the eastern side of Ponto Road on three parcels: 7290 Ponto Drive, (APN: 214-160-
25-00, Parcel 1), 7200 Ponto Drive, (APN: 214-160-28-00, Parcel 2), and 7294 Ponto Drive, (APN: 214-171-11-
00, Parcel 3). The majority of the Project site is open with vegetation including grass and ice plants (Figure 9). The
Project site is irregular in shape. The north end of the Project site is triangular in shape and surrounded by an
approximately six-foot-tall chain-link fence with train tracks along its eastern boundary. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are
located on the west side of the Project site. Parcel 1, on the southwestern side of the Project site, is entirely
developed with six storage buildings constructed in 1974 (Figures 5-9). Parcel 1 is built up with buildings and
concrete driveways (Figures 7-8). Parcel 2 is in the northwest section of the Project site and is the vacant site of a
former junkyard. It is sparsely developed with a small concrete overpass leading to a masonry wall enclosing the
lot. Parcel 3 is the entire east side of the Project site (Figures 5-6, 9). Parcel 3 is relatively rectangular in shape
surrounded by an approximately six-foot-tall chain-link fence along its eastern and southern boundary and concrete
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 20 NOVEMBER 2022
and stucco walls along its southern, western, and northern boundaries. On the southeastern portion of Parcel 3 are
two vacant office buildings constructed circa 1963 (Office Building 1) and circa 1966 (Office Building 2). A
rectangular concrete foundation is in the southeastern section of the Project site in Parcel 3. The southern wall
along Parcels 1 and 3 displays four vertical sections of stone veneer and a “Ponto Storage Rentals” sign.
Surrounding the Project site are single-family residences to the west, a walled-in open lot to the north, and
undeveloped land to the south.
Office Building 1 (circa 1963)
Office Building 1 is irregular in plan and one story in height (Figure 5). The building is utilitarian in style with a low-pitched
side gable roof sheathed in rolled composition roofing with decorative false beams. The building’s roof displays a wooden
sign “Ponto Storage.” The building also displays two shed-roofed one-story projections on the north and south elevations.
Its exterior walls are clad in vertical composition wood boards. The primary (west) elevation displays three composition
wood entry doors and a series of fenestration openings covered with plywood. Fenestration on the building’s three
secondary elevations includes composition wood entry doors and fenestration openings covered with plywood.
Observed alterations include:
▪ Addition to north and south elevations (date unknown)
▪ Reroofing (date unknown)
▪ Covering of fenestration openings (date unknown)
▪ Removal of junkyard debris
Office Building 2 (circa 1966)
Office Building 2 is L-shaped in plan and one story in height (Figure 6). The building is utilitarian in style with a cross
gable roof sheathed in rolled composition roofing with overhanging, open eaves. The building’s exterior walls are
clad in stucco. Along the building’s main (west) elevation is a concrete patio. All the building’s fenestration openings
are covered with plywood.
Observed alterations include:
▪ Reroofing (date unknown)
▪ Covering of fenestration openings (date unknown)
Storage Buildings (1974)
The Project site’s western end (Parcel 1) contains six one-story utilitarian storage buildings on either rectangular or
irregular plans (Figure 7). Each building displays a flat roof sheathed in rolled composition roofing and exterior walls
clad in stucco. Each building has either one elevation or two elevations of storage lockers. Fenestration includes
wood counterweight garage doors, metal roller doors, and fenestration openings covered with plywood. The rooftop
of one of the storage buildings displays a wood “Ponto Storage 7290 Ponto Dr.” sign (Figure 8).
Observed alterations include:
▪ Reroofing (date unknown)
▪ Covering of fenestration openings (date unknown)
▪ Replacement of wood doors with metal (date unknown)
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 21 NOVEMBER 2022
Figure 5. Office Building 1, East and north elevations, view to northwest (DSC00087).
Source: Dudek 2022
Figure 6. Office Building 2, South and east elevations, view to northwest (DSC00113).
Source: Dudek 2022
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 22 NOVEMBER 2022
Figure 7. Storage Buildings, East and north elevations, view to west (DSC00163).
Source: Dudek 2022
Figure 8. Storage Buildings, South elevations, view to north (DSC00199).
Source: Dudek 2022
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 23 NOVEMBER 2022
Building Permits Information
The following list of known building construction was compiled through archival research of Carlsbad building
permits for Parcel 1 only:
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $52,316, Building Permit #74-54 (1974)
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $62,250, Building Permit #74-55 (1974)
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $43,500, Building Permit #74-56 (1974)
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $30,341, Building Permit #74-57 (1974)
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $11,310, Building Permit #74-58 (1974)
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $11,600, Building Permit #74-59 (1974)
▪ Build single-story storage unit for $14,500, Building Permit #74-60 (1974)
Figure 9. Contextual photo of open space on the north end of the Project site, view to north (DSC00070).
Source: Dudek 2022
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 24 NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14183 25 NOVEMBER 2022
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 A/1: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
Archival research indicated that the Project site includes two office buildings from circa 1963 and 1966 that were
built as part of a concrete mixing plant along with six additional storage buildings constructed in 1974. The Project
site shares an association with the trends of industrial and commercial growth in northern San Diego County during
the 1960s and 1970s. Both the concrete mixing plant and later storage facility and junkyard were common for their
type and ubiquitous in the County. Both San Diego Consolidated Co. and Ponto Storage do not appear to be long
term or important companies in the development of the area. Though the Project site is located adjacent to the
BNSF railroad tracks (formerly ATSF), there is no indication that it was historically or functionally associated with
the railroad and transportation development. Also, there is no indication it is associated with important themes in
the history of Carlsbad, including the military development of the area. Research found no association with more
specific events or patterns of development that have historical significance at the local, state, or national level. For
these reasons, the Project site does not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1.
Criterion B/2: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
The office buildings on the Project site were built as part of the San Diego Consolidated Co. concrete mixing plant,
but the plant appears to have operated at the site for less than 10 years and research did not uncover an
individual associated with the plant. When owner Dale Schreiber built the storage buildings in 1974, he reused
the existing office buildings for his storage facility. Despite being a longtime Ponto neighborhood business owner
and resident, Dale Schreiber does not appear to be a person significant in our past. Due to a lack of identified
significant associations with important individuals, the Project site does not appear eligible under NRHP
Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 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 two office buildings and the six storage buildings on the Project site all represent modest, largely unembellished,
utilitarian buildings. The buildings have few character-defining architectural features and are unremarkable
examples of their type. More distinguished forms of commercial and industrial architecture can be found throughout
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 26 NOVEMBER 2022
San Diego County. The office buildings have a basic layout and the building permits show the six storage buildings
were not architect-designed and likely not the work of a master. While the storage buildings were engineer-designed
by Rancho Santa Fe Engineering, it appears the Rancho Santa Fe-based firm did little overall work and was limited
to designing light industrial-type properties in San Diego County during the 1970s. As such, the buildings lack
sufficient distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; do not represent the work of a
master; do not possess high artistic values; nor do they appear to be potential contributors to a historic district.
Therefore, the Project site does not appear eligible under NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3
Criterion D/4: That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The Project site is not significant under Criterion D of the NRHP or Criterion 4 of the CRHR as a source, or likely
source, of important historical information nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic
construction methods, materials or technologies.
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 buildings on the Project site neither exemplify nor reflect special elements of
the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. Therefore, the Project
site 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 buildings on the Project site are not identified with persons or
events significant in local, state, or national history. Therefore, the Project site 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 utilitarian office buildings and storage buildings on the Project site are modest examples of their type with few
noteworthy architectural features. Utilitarian storage buildings such as these are ubiquitous throughout Southern
California. While it is unknown who designed the two office buildings on the Project site, building permits revealed
that the six 1974 storage buildings were not architect-designed. As such, the buildings lack sufficient distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; do not represent the work of a master; do not possess
high artistic values; nor are they potential contributors to a historic district. Therefore, the Project site is
recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory under this criterion.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 27 NOVEMBER 2022
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, the Project site 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 Project site 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 (i.e.:
a historic district). Therefore, the Project site is recommended not eligible for listing in the City of Carlsbad Historic
Resources Inventory under this criterion.
5.3 Integrity Discussion
Integrity Discussion
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, properties must retain their physical integrity from the period in which they
gained significance. In the case of architecturally significant properties, the period of significance is normally the
date of construction. For historically significant properties, the length of the historic associations usually measures
the period of significance.
The Project site contains eight total buildings (two 1960s era office buildings, and six 1974 storage buildings).
Since the original buildings have not been moved, the Project site retains integrity of location. Because a number
of window openings and doorways are covered in plywood, views of both doors and windows are obscured, the
integrity of materials, workmanship and design could not be determined. Besides the construction of a hotel to
the north of the Project site, the surrounding neighborhood has remained largely the same since the storage
buildings were constructed in the 1970s, so integrity of setting is maintained. The Project site no longer functions
as a storage facility or a concrete mixing plant so the integrity of association and feeling is diminished. In
summary, the Project site maintains integrity of location and setting but has diminished integrity of association
and feeling. As stated previously, design, materials, and workmanship were not visible due to physical
obstructions and could not be analyzed.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 28 NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14183 29 NOVEMBER 2022
6 Findings and Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Findings
No historic built environment resources were identified within the Project site as a result of extensive archival
research, a field survey, and property significance evaluation. Findings are summarized below in Table 2. Therefore,
the properties that comprise the proposed Project site are not considered historical resources for the purposes of
CEQA. Further, no potential indirect impacts to historical resources were identified.
Table 2. Historic Built Environment Findings
Address
Date
Constructed
NRHP/CRHR/
City of
Carlsbad
Significance
Criteria
Previous
CHRS code (if
applicable)
Assigned
California
Historical
Resource Status
code CEQA Finding
Project site
(APNs 214-
160-25-00,
214-16-28-
00, 214-171-
11-00)
Circa 1963
(earliest
building)
Not eligible Not applicable 6Z: Found ineligible
for NR, CR or local
designation through
survey evaluation
Not considered
a historical
resource for
the purposes of
CEQA
6.2 Recommendations
No historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the Project site as a result of the BERD search, extensive
archival research, a SCIC records search, field survey, and property evaluations of significance. The Project site is
not currently designated or listed under any national, state, or local cultural resources programs. The buildings on
these parcels have not been identified as eligible for local designation by a recent historic resources survey.
Dudek evaluated the Project site in accordance with Section 15064.5 (a)(2)-(3) of California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines and using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Dudek concludes that the buildings on the Project site do not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or
as a City of Carlsbad cultural resources designation due to a lack of significance. As such, no buildings on the Project
site appear to be historical resources under CEQA. The recommended Status Code for the Project site is 6Z. Further,
no potential indirect impacts to historical resources were identified as the proposed Project has no potential to
impact the built environment beyond the Project site.
The finding for built environment cultural resources for the proposed Project under CEQA is No Impact. As the
proposed Project would have no impact on historical resources, no further study is required
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 30 NOVEMBER 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14183 31 NOVEMBER 2022
7 References
Bibb, L.E. 1991. “Pablo Apis and Temecula.” Journal of San Diego History 37(4):256–271.
Brigandi, P. 1998. Temecula: at the Crossroads of History. Encinitas, California: Heritage Media Corporation.
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.
Carlsbad City Library. (n.d.). 1965 Photos of the Ponto neighborhood.
Chula Vista Star-News. 1971. “San Diego Consolidated Concrete Co” [Advertisement] Chula Vista Star-News
(Chula Vista, CA). August 26, 1971: pg B-9.
City of Carlsbad. 2018. “History.” City of Carlsbad. Accessed October 3, 2018. http://www.carlsbadca.gov/
services/depts/police/inside/history.asp.
ECORP. 2017. “Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines.” The City of Carlsbad, California.
Fetzer, Leland. 2005. San Diego County Place Names, A to Z. Sunbelt Publications.
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.
Gutierrez, Susan Schnebelen. 2002. Windows on the Past: An Illustrated History of Carlsbad, California. Virginia
Beach, Virginia: Walsworth Publishing Company.
Harmon, John. 1961. “History of Carlsbad.” Electronic document, Accessed October 3, 2018,
https://www.carlsbadhistoricalsociety.com/Carlsbad%20Historical%20Society_files/AHistoryofCarlsbad.htm.
Harmon, Jack. 1967. A History of Carlsbad. Carlsbad: Friends of the Library. Carlsbad Historical Society.
Jones, Marje Howard. 1982. Seekers of the Spring: A History of Carlsbad. Carlsbad, California: Carlsbad Friends
of the Library.
NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC). 2022. Historic aerial photographs dates 1947, 1953, 1964,
1967, 1975, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and
2018. Accessed February 12, 2022. 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. 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.
FPC RESIDENTIAL PROJECT / HISTORICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
14183 32 NOVEMBER 2022
Roth and Associates. 1990. Cultural Resources Survey: City of Carlsbad. Prepared by Roth and Associates
for the City of Carlsbad. February 18, 1990. https://www.carlsbadhistoricalsociety.com/
"Carlsbad%20Historical%20Society_files/Cultural%20Resources%20Survey%201990.pdf
The Citizen. 1988. “Neighborhood relishes anonymity despite funny name” The Citizen (Del Mar California),
May 11, 1988, pg A5.
The San Diego Union Tribune. 2015. “Luxury Condos, Stores coming to Ponto Beach” The San Diego Union
Tribune (San Diego California), August 5, 2015, pg. 1.
UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara). 2022. Historic Aerial Photographs of the Project site, Carlsbad, CA
dating from 1963 and 1975. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource.
Accessed February 10, 2022. http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder.
Van Horn, K. 1974. “Tempting Temecula: The Making and Unmaking of a Southern California Community.”
Journal of San Diego History 20:26–38.
Westec Services, Inc. 1980. Regional Historic Preservation Study: Carlsbad, CA. Prepared for the Compressive Planning
Organization of the San Diego Region. April 19, 1980. http://www.carlsbadhistoricalsociety.com/
Carlsbad%20Historical%20Society_files/historical/Regionl%20Historic%20Preservation%20Study%
20Carlsbad%201980.pdf
Appendix A
Preparer’s Qualifications
Appendix B
Department of Parks and Recreation Form Set