Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025

APPENDIX D
h>dhZ>Z
^KhZ
^dhz
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE JEFFERSON AVENUE PROJECT CITY OF MURRIETA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APN 910-410-011 Lead Agency: City of Murrieta 1 Town Square Murrieta, California 92562 Preparer: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 Project Proponent: LMC 95 Enterprise, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 June 8, 2022

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i
Archaeological Database Information Author: Brian F. Smith Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 Client/Project Proponent: LMC 95 Enterprise, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Report Date: June 8, 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California (APN 910-410-011) Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey USGS Quadrangle: Murrieta, California (7.5 minute) Acreage: Approximately 18 acres Key Words: Survey; no significant cultural resources identified; Murrieta USGS Quadrangle; mitigation monitoring recommended.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii
Table of Contents Section Description Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ........................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1.0–1 1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1.0–1 1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 1.0–1 1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives ............................................... 1.0–5 1.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1.0–6 1.3.2 Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) ..... 1.0–6 1.3.3 Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 YBP to 1,300 YBP) .............................................................................................. 1.0–6 1.3.4 Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) ............... 1.0–9 1.3.5 Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) ......................... 1.0–10 1.3.6 Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present) .................................................. 1.0–17 1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ................................................ 1.0–21 1.5 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................... 1.0–23 1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................... 1.0–23 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................ 2.0–1 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ................................................................... 3.0–1 3.1 Survey Methods ............................................................................................... 3.0–1 3.2 Results of the Field Survey .............................................................................. 3.0–1 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 4.0–1 4.1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program ......................................................... 4.0–1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ...................... 5.0–1 6.0 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 6.0–1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................... 7.0–1 List of Appendices Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results* Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results* *Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii
List of Figures Figure Description Page Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map .................................................................................. 1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ..................................................................... 1.0–3 Figure 1.1–3 Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................... 1.0–4 List of Plates Plate Description Page Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project, facing north along the existing creek ...................... 3.0–2 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project, facing northwest ...................................................... 3.0–2 Plate 3.2–3 View along the existing creek alignment on the property .............................. 3.0–3 Plate 3.2–4 View of the southeastern corner of the property, which is separated from the balance of the property by the existing creek ............................................ 3.0–3 List of Tables Table Description Page Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Recorded Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project ...... 1.0–21 Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT In response to a request from the project applicant, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a cultural resources study for the proposed Jefferson Avenue Project in the city of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. The project proposes the construction of a mixed-use apartment buildings with tuck-under garages, surface parking, and a club/lease building. The approximately 18-acre project is located east of the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road and encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 910-410-011. The project is situated within the unsectioned Temecula Land Grant (Township 7 South, Range 3 West [projected], of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian), as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Murrieta, California topographic quadrangle map. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if any cultural resources would be affected by the proposed land development. The archaeological investigation of the project included an archaeological records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California at Riverside (UCR). The records search was requested from the EIC on February 16, 2022 and results were received and processed by BFSA on June 3, 2022. The results of the records search indicated that 78 cultural resources are mapped within a one-mile radius of the project, none of which are located within the subject property. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search to search for the presence of any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within one mile of the project. Survey conditions were good with ground visibility ranging between fair and excellent throughout the property. The property can be characterized as completely disturbed by clearing and disking, road improvements on the west and north, and partial channelization of the drainage that passes through the eastern half of the property. The Phase I survey of the property did not result in the identification of any cultural resources within the project. The possibility always exists, however, that past human or natural actions may have masked and buried an archaeological site, but the likelihood of that occurrence appears minimal. Based upon the results of the current study, cultural resource monitoring is recommended for the development of this property due to the potential for masked or buried resources at this location, especially along the path of the drainage. Therefore, it is recommended that all earthwork required to develop the property be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative. The protocols to be followed for the archaeological monitoring of the property are presented in Section 4.0 of this report. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the EIC at UCR. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The archaeological survey program for the Jefferson Avenue Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Murrieta environmental guidelines. The approximately 18-acre project (APN 910-410-011) is located east of the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the city of Murrieta, Riverside County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The project is situated within the unsectioned Temecula Land Grant (Township 7 South, Range 3 West [projected], of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian) as shown on the USGS 7.5-minute Murrieta, California topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1.1–2). The project proposes the construction of a mixed-use apartment buildings with tuck-under garages, surface parking, and a club/lease building (Figure 1.1–3). As part of the environmental review process for development permits, the City of Murrieta directed the completion of a cultural resources study to determine if the project represents an impact to cultural resources. 1.2 Environmental Setting The Jefferson Avenue Project is located in the city of Murrieta in the southwestern portion of Riverside County. Elevations on the project range from approximately 1,071 to 1,102 feet above mean sea level. The closest major water source is Murrieta Creek, which is fed by seasonal drainages that originate within the higher elevated areas to the east and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. Much of the valley floor to the west and the area surrounding the subject property has been developed for residential neighborhoods and commercial developments. Soil types mapped within the subject property include Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded, and Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (NRCS 2019). Geologically, the project lies within the Elsinore Fault zone, which divides the Perris Block, on the northeast side of the fault zone, from the Santa Ana Block on the southwest. Near the project, the northwest-southeast-trending Wildomar fault is mapped alongside southbound Jefferson Avenue (Wirths 2022). The project partly sits on the sandstone member of the Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation, and partly on Holocene- to late Pleistocene-aged young alluvial deposits (Kennedy and Morton 2003). Prehistoric populations utilized the drainages within the granite-dominated hills surrounding the project. In prehistoric times, natural vegetation was likely dominated by winter annual grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The natural vegetation present in the surrounding areas includes Riversidean sage scrub, and vegetation in the nearby foothills mostly consists of xerically adapted evergreen species, chaparral vegetation dominated by chamise and scrub oak, and canyons and riparian sites producing oak and cottonwood trees.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–5
Historically, mule deer, big horn sheep, pronghorn sheep, mountain lions, bobcats, bears, wolves, and an array of rodents would have been available resources. In addition, a large range of fowl (e.g., quail, ducks, geese, raptors, sparrows), reptiles, and fish may have also been available to the early inhabitants of the region. 1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material remains left behind. This is done using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology allows one to look deeper into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest via analysis of material culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts of a given culture on this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment. Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic” perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hoping to attain a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work. As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding, and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective. As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.” This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture. However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of choices and consequences influencing everything from technology, to religions, to institutions. Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices, changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014). To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological (etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected. In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–6
of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible. 1.3.1 Introduction Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Takic groups are the three general cultural periods represented in Riverside County. The following discussion of the cultural history of Riverside County references the San Dieguito Complex, Encinitas Tradition, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component present in the Riverside County area was primarily represented by the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Luiseño Indians. Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this archaeological discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to interchangeably use these terms. Reference will be made to the geological framework that divides the archaeologically-based culture chronology of the area into four segments: the late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), the early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), the middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and the late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP). 1.3.2 Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) Archaeologically, the Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused the glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995). 1.3.3 Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) Archaeological data indicates that between 9,000 and 8,000 YBP, a widespread complex was established in the southern California region, primarily along the coast (Warren and True Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–7
1961). This complex is locally known as the La Jolla Complex (Rogers 1939; Moriarty 1966), which is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968) and shares cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The coastal expression of this complex appeared in southern California coastal areas and focused upon coastal resources and the development of deeply stratified shell middens that were primarily located around bays and lagoons. The older sites associated with this expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and some of the Channel Islands. Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of over 7,000 years in this region, beginning over 9,000 YBP. The Encinitas Tradition is best recognized for its pattern of large coastal sites characterized by shell middens, grinding tools that are closely associated with the marine resources of the area, cobble-based tools, and flexed human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985). While ground stone tools and scrapers are the most recognized tool types, coastal Encinitas Tradition sites also contain numerous utilized flakes, which may have been used to pry open shellfish. Artifact assemblages at coastal sites indicate a subsistence pattern focused upon shellfish collection and nearshore fishing. This suggests an incipient maritime adaptation with regional similarities to more northern sites of the same period (Koerper et al. 1986). Other artifacts associated with Encinitas Tradition sites include stone bowls, doughnut stones, discoidals, stone balls, and stone, bone, and shell beads. The coastal lagoons in southern California supported large Milling Stone Horizon populations circa 6,000 YBP, as is shown by numerous radiocarbon dates from the many sites adjacent to the lagoons. The ensuing millennia were not stable environmentally, and by 3,000 YBP, many of the coastal sites in central San Diego County had been abandoned (Gallegos 1987, 1992). The abandonment of the area is usually attributed to the sedimentation of coastal lagoons and the resulting deterioration of fish and mollusk habitat. This is a well-documented situation at Batiquitos Lagoon, where over a two-thousand-year period, dominant mollusk species occurring in archaeological middens shift from deep-water mollusks (Argopecten sp.) to species tolerant of tidal flat conditions (Chione sp.), indicating water depth and temperature changes (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987). This situation likely occurred for other small drainages (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, San Marcos, and Escondido creeks) along the central San Diego coast where low flow rates did not produce sufficient discharge to flush the lagoons they fed (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo lagoons) (Byrd 1998). Drainages along the northern and southern San Diego coastline were larger and flushed the coastal hydrological features they fed, keeping them open to the ocean and allowing for continued human exploitation (Byrd 1998). Peñasquitos Lagoon exhibits dates as late as 2,355 YBP (Smith and Moriarty 1985) and San Diego Bay showed continuous occupation until the close of the Milling Stone Horizon (Gallegos and Kyle 1988). Additionally, data from several drainages in Camp Pendleton indicate a continued occupation of shell midden sites until the close of the period, indicating that coastal sites were not entirely Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–8
abandoned during this time (Byrd 1998). By 5,000 YBP, an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex is evident in the archaeological record, exhibiting influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north. These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed “Pauma Complex” (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954). By definition, Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack mollusk remains, have greater tool variety (including atlatl dart points, quarry-based tools, and crescentics), and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based upon the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources. Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system utilized by the coastal peoples. Evidence from the 4S Project in inland San Diego County suggests that these inland sites may represent seasonal components within an annual subsistence round by La Jolla Complex populations (Raven-Jennings et al. 1996). Including both coastal and inland sites of this time period in discussions of the Encinitas Tradition, therefore, provides a more complete appraisal of the settlement and subsistence system exhibited by this cultural complex. More recent work by Sutton has identified a more localized complex known as the Greven Knoll Complex. The Greven Knoll Complex is a redefined northern inland expression of the Encinitas Tradition first put forth by Mark Sutton and Jill Gardener (2010). Sutton and Gardener (2010:25) state that “[t]he early millingstone archaeological record in the northern portion of the interior southern California was not formally named but was often referred to as ‘Inland Millingstone,’ ‘Encinitas,’ or even ‘Topanga.’” Therefore, they proposed that all expressions of the inland Milling Stone in southern California north of San Diego County be grouped together in the Greven Knoll Complex. The Greven Knoll Complex, as postulated by Sutton and Gardener (2010), is broken into three phases and obtained its name from the type-site Greven Knoll located in Yucaipa, California. Presently, the Greven Knoll Site is part of the Yukaipa’t Site (SBR-1000) and was combined with the adjacent Simpson Site. Excavations at Greven Knoll recovered manos, metates, projectile points, discoidal cogged stones, and a flexed inhumation with a possible cremation (Kowta 1969:39). It is believed that the Greven Knoll Site was occupied between 5,000 and 3,500 YBP. The Simpson Site contained mortars, pestles, side-notched points, and stone and shell beads. Based upon the data recovered at these sites, Kowta (1969:39) suggested that “coastal Milling Stone Complexes extended to and interdigitated with the desert Pinto Basin Complex in the vicinity of the Cajon Pass.” Phase I of the Greven Knoll Complex is generally dominated by the presence of manos and metates, core tools, hammerstones, large dart points, flexed inhumations, and occasional cremations. Mortars and pestles are absent from this early phase, and the subsistence economy emphasized hunting. Sutton and Gardener (2010:26) propose that the similarity of the material culture of Greven Knoll Phase I and that found in the Mojave Desert at Pinto Period sites indicates that the Greven Knoll Complex was influenced by neighbors to the north at that time. Accordingly, Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–9
Sutton and Gardener (2010) believe that Greven Knoll Phase I may have appeared as early as 9,400 YBP and lasted until about 4,000 YBP. Greven Knoll Phase II is associated with a period between 4,000 and 3,000 YBP. Artifacts common to Greven Knoll Phase II include manos and metates, Elko points, core tools, and discoidals. Pestles and mortars are present; however, they are only represented in small numbers. Finally, there is an emphasis upon hunting and gathering for subsistence (Sutton and Gardener 2010:8). Greven Knoll Phase III includes manos, metates, Elko points, scraper planes, choppers, hammerstones, and discoidals. Again, small numbers of mortars and pestles are present. Greven Knoll Phase III spans from approximately 3,000 to 1,000 YBP and shows a reliance upon seeds and yucca. Hunting is still important, but bones seem to have been processed to obtain bone grease more often in this later phase (Sutton and Gardener 2010:8). The shifts in food processing technologies during each of these phases indicate a change in subsistence strategies; although people were still hunting for large game, plant-based foods eventually became the primary dietary resource (Sutton 2011a). Sutton’s (2011b) argument posits that the development of mortars and pestles during the middle Holocene can be attributed to the year-round exploitation of acorns as a main dietary provision. Additionally, the warmer and drier climate may have been responsible for groups from the east moving toward coastal populations, which is archaeologically represented by the interchange of coastal and eastern cultural traits (Sutton 2011a). 1.3.4 Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Many Luiseño hold the world view that, as a population, they were created in southern California. Anthropological data, however, proposes a scientific archaeological perspective, suggesting that at approximately 1,350 YBP, Takic-speaking groups from the Great Basin region moved into Riverside County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. An analysis of the Takic expansion by Sutton (2009) indicates that inland southern California was occupied by “proto-Yuman” populations before 1,000 YBP. The comprehensive, multi-phase model offered by Sutton (2009) employs linguistic, ethnographic, archaeological, and biological data to solidify a reasonable argument for population replacement of Takic groups to the north by Penutians (Laylander 1985). As a result, it is believed that Takic expansion occurred starting around 3,500 YBP moving toward southern California, with the Gabrielino language diffusing south into neighboring Yuman (Hokan) groups around 1,500 to 1,000 YBP, possibly resulting in the Luiseño dialect. Based upon Sutton’s model, the final Takic expansion would not have occurred until about 1,000 YBP, resulting in Vanyume, Serrano, Cahuilla, and Cupeño dialects. The model suggests that the Luiseño did not simply replace Hokan speakers, but were rather a northern San Diego County/southern Riverside County Yuman population who adopted the Takic language. This period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–10
technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far-reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. 1.3.5 Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) Ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence indicates that three Takic-speaking groups occupied portions of Riverside County: the Cahuilla, the Gabrielino, and the Luiseño. The geographic boundaries between these groups in pre- and proto-historic times are difficult to place, but the project is located well within the borders of ethnographic Luiseño territory. This group was a seasonal hunting and gathering people with cultural elements that were very distinct from Archaic Period peoples. These distinctions include cremation of the dead, the use of the bow and arrow, and exploitation of the acorn as a main food staple (Moratto 1984). Along the coast, the Luiseño made use of available marine resources by fishing and collecting mollusks for food. Seasonally available terrestrial resources, including acorns and game, were also sources of nourishment for Luiseño groups. Elaborate kinship and clan systems between the Luiseño and other groups facilitated a wide-reaching trade network that included trade of Obsidian Butte obsidian and other resources from the eastern deserts, as well as steatite from the Channel Islands. According to Charles Handley (1967), the primary settlements of Late Prehistoric Luiseño Indians in the San Jacinto Plain were represented by Ivah and Soboba near Soboba Springs, Jusipah near the town of San Jacinto, Ararah in Webster’s Canyon en route to Idyllwild, Pahsitha near Big Springs Ranch southeast of Hemet, and Corova in Castillo Canyon. These locations share features such as the availability of food and water resources. Features of this land use include petroglyphs and pictographs, as well as widespread milling, which is evident in bedrock and portable implements. Groups in the vicinity of the project, neighboring the Luiseño, include the Cahuilla and the Gabrielino. Ethnographic data for the three groups is presented below. Luiseño: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective When contacted by the Spanish in the sixteenth century, the Luiseño occupied a territory bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Peninsular Ranges mountains at San Jacinto (including Palomar Mountain to the south and Santiago Peak to the north), on the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and on the north by Aliso Creek in present-day San Juan Capistrano. The Luiseño were a Takic-speaking people more closely related linguistically and ethnographically to the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Cupeño to the north and east rather than the Kumeyaay who occupied territory to the south. The Luiseño differed from their neighboring Takic speakers in having an extensive proliferation of social statuses, a system of ruling families that provided ethnic cohesion Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–11
within the territory, a distinct worldview that stemmed from the use of datura (a hallucinogen), and an elaborate religion that included the creation of sacred sand paintings depicting the deity Chingichngish (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Subsistence and Settlement The Luiseño occupied sedentary villages most often located in sheltered areas in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges. Villages were located near water sources to facilitate acorn leaching and in areas that offered thermal and defensive protection. Villages were comprised of areas that were publicly and privately (by family) owned. Publicly owned areas included trails, temporary campsites, hunting areas, and quarry sites. Inland groups had fishing and gathering sites along the coast that were intensively used from January to March when inland food resources were scarce. During October and November, most of the village would relocate to mountain oak groves to harvest acorns. The Luiseño remained at village sites for the remainder of the year, where food resources were within a day’s travel (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The most important food source for the Luiseño was the acorn, six different species of which were used (Quercus californica, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus dumosa, Quercus engelmannii, and Quercus wislizenii). Seeds, particularly of grasses, flowering plants, and mints, were also heavily exploited. Seed-bearing species were encouraged through controlled burns, which were conducted at least every third year. A variety of other stems, leaves, shoots, bulbs, roots, and fruits were also collected. Hunting augmented this vegetal diet. Animal species taken included deer, rabbit, hare, woodrat, ground squirrel, antelope, quail, duck, freshwater fish from mountain streams, marine mammals, and other sea creatures such as fish, crustaceans, and mollusks (particularly abalone, or Haliotis sp.). In addition, a variety of snakes, small birds, and rodents were eaten (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Social Organization Social groups within the Luiseño nation consisted of patrilinear families or clans, which were politically and economically autonomous. Several clans comprised a religious party, or nota, which was headed by a chief who organized ceremonies and controlled economics and warfare. The chief had assistants who specialized in particular aspects of ceremonial or environmental knowledge and who, with the chief, were part of a religion-based social group with special access to supernatural power, particularly that of Chingichngish. The positions of chief and assistants were hereditary, and the complexity and multiplicity of these specialists’ roles likely increased in coastal and larger inland villages (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976; Strong 1929). Marriages were arranged by the parents, often made to forge alliances between lineages. Useful alliances included those between groups of differing ecological niches and those that resulted in territorial expansion. Residence was patrilocal (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Women were primarily responsible for plant gathering and men principally hunted, but at times, Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–12
particularly during acorn and marine mollusk harvests, there was no division of labor. Elderly women cared for children and elderly men participated in rituals, ceremonies, and political affairs. They were also responsible for manufacturing hunting and ritual implements. Children were taught subsistence skills at the earliest age possible (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Material Culture House structures were conical, partially subterranean, and thatched with reeds, brush, or bark. Ramadas were rectangular, protected workplaces for domestic chores such as cooking. Ceremonial sweathouses were important in purification rituals; these were round and partially subterranean thatched structures covered with a layer of mud. Another ceremonial structure was the wámkis (located in the center of the village, serving as the place of rituals), where sand paintings and other rituals associated with the Chingichngish religious group were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Clothing was minimal; women wore a cedar-bark and netted twine double apron and men wore a waist cord. In cold weather, cloaks or robes of rabbit fur, deerskin, or sea otter fur were worn by both sexes. Footwear included deerskin moccasins and sandals fashioned from yucca fibers. Adornments included bead necklaces and pendants made of bone, clay, stone, shell, bear claw, mica, deer hooves, and abalone shell. Men wore ear and nose piercings made from cane or bone, which were sometimes decorated with beads. Other adornments were commonly decorated with semiprecious stones including quartz, topaz, garnet, opal, opalite, agate, and jasper (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Hunting implements included the bow and arrow. Arrows were tipped with either a carved, fire-hardened wood tip or a lithic point, usually fashioned from locally available metavolcanic material or quartz. Throwing sticks fashioned from wood were used in hunting small game, while deer head decoys were used during deer hunts. Coastal groups fashioned dugout canoes for nearshore fishing and harvested fish with seines, nets, traps, and hooks made of bone or abalone shell (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The Luiseño had a well-developed basket industry. Baskets were used in resource gathering, food preparation, storage, and food serving. Ceramic containers were shaped by paddle and anvil and fired in shallow, open pits to be used for food storage, cooking, and serving. Other utensils included wood implements, steatite bowls, and ground stone manos, metates, mortars, and pestles (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Additional tools such as knives, scrapers, choppers, awls, and drills were also used. Shamanistic items include soapstone or clay smoking pipes and crystals made of quartz or tourmaline (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Cahuilla: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective At the time of Spanish contact in the sixteenth century, the Cahuilla occupied territory that included the San Bernardino Mountains, Orocopia Mountain, and the Chocolate Mountains to the west, Salton Sea and Borrego Springs to the south, Palomar Mountain and Lake Mathews to the Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–13
west, and the Santa Ana River to the north. The Cahuilla are a Takic-speaking people closely related to their Gabrielino and Luiseño neighbors, although relations with the Gabrielino were more intense than with the Luiseño. They differ from the Luiseño and Gabrielino in that their religion is more similar to the Mohave tribes of the eastern deserts than the Chingichngish religious group of the Luiseño and Gabrielino. The following is a summary of ethnographic data regarding this group (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Subsistence and Settlement Cahuilla villages were typically permanent and located on low terraces within canyons in proximity to water sources. These locations proved to be rich in food resources and also afforded protection from prevailing winds. Villages had areas that were publicly owned and areas that were privately owned by clans, families, or individuals. Each village was associated with a particular lineage and series of sacred sites that included unique petroglyphs and pictographs. Villages were occupied throughout the year; however, during a several-week period in the fall, most of the village members relocated to mountain oak groves to take part in acorn harvesting (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). The Cahuilla’s use of plant resources is well documented. Plant foods harvested by the Cahuilla included valley oak acorns and single-leaf pinyon pine nuts. Other important plant species included bean and screw mesquite, agave, Mohave yucca, cacti, palm, chia, quail brush, yellowray goldfield, goosefoot, manzanita, catsclaw, desert lily, mariposa lily, and a number of other species such as grass seed. A number of agricultural domesticates were acquired from the Colorado River tribes including corn, bean, squash, and melon grown in limited amounts. Animal species taken included deer, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, rabbit, hare, rat, quail, dove, duck, roadrunner, and a variety of rodents, reptiles, fish, and insects (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Social Organization The Cahuilla was not a political nation, but rather a cultural nationality with a common language. Two non-political, non-territorial patrimoieties were recognized: the Wildcats (túktem) and the Coyotes (?ístam). Lineage and kinship were memorized at a young age among the Cahuilla, providing a backdrop for political relationships. Clans were comprised of three to 10 lineages; each lineage owned a village site and specific resource areas. Lineages within a clan cooperated in subsistence activities, defense, and rituals (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). A system of ceremonial hierarchy operated within each lineage. The hierarchy included the lineage leader, who was responsible for leading subsistence activities, guarding the sacred bundle, and negotiating with other lineage leaders in matters concerning land use, boundary disputes, marriage arrangements, trade, warfare, and ceremonies. The ceremonial assistant to the lineage leader was responsible for organizing ceremonies. A ceremonial singer possessed and performed songs at rituals and trained assistant singers. The shaman cured illnesses through supernatural powers, controlled natural phenomena, and was the guardian of ceremonies, keeping Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–14
evil spirits away. The diviner was responsible for finding lost objects, telling future events, and locating game and other food resources. Doctors were usually older women who cured various ailments and illnesses with their knowledge of medicinal herbs. Finally, certain Cahuilla specialized as traders, who ranged as far west as Santa Catalina and as far east as the Gila River (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Marriages were arranged by parents from opposite moieties. When a child was born, an alliance formed between the families, which included frequent reciprocal exchanges. The Cahuilla kinship system extended to relatives within five generations. Important economic decisions, primarily the distribution of goods, operated within this kinship system (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Material Culture Cahuilla houses were dome-shaped or rectangular, thatched structures. The home of the lineage leader was the largest, located near the ceremonial house with the best access to water. Other structures within the village included the men’s sweathouse and granaries (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Cahuilla clothing, like other groups in the area, was minimal. Men typically wore a loincloth and sandals; women wore skirts made from mesquite bark, animal skin, or tules. Babies wore mesquite bark diapers. Rabbit skin cloaks were worn in cold weather (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Hunting implements included the bow and arrow, throwing sticks, and clubs. Grinding tools used in food processing included manos, metates, and wood mortars. The Cahuilla were known to use long grinding implements made from wood to process mesquite beans; the mortar was typically a hollowed log buried in the ground. Other tools included steatite arrow shaft straighteners (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbrush. Different species and leaves were chosen for different colors in the basket design. Coiled-ware baskets were either flat (for plates, trays, or winnowing), bowl-shaped (for food serving), deep, inverted, and cone-shaped (for transporting), or rounded and flat-bottomed for storing utensils and personal items (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Cahuilla pottery was made from a thin, red-colored ceramic ware that was often painted and incised. Four basic vessel types are known for the Cahuilla: small-mouthed jars, cooking pots, bowls, and dishes. Additionally, smoking pipes and flutes were fashioned from ceramic (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976). Gabrielino: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–15
the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Subsistence and Settlement The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and occupied smaller resource-gathering camps at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller, seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray and shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin and porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks, such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and numerous snake species (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Social Organization Little is known about the social structure of the Gabrielino; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage. Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–16
under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Material Culture Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Clothing was minimal; men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs. Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976). The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–17

1.3.6 Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present) Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis. European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial, long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), who began colonization the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921). Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman 1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–18
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked on a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County. These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente (circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976). Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824. As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832. These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo (Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments within western Riverside County. The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–19
suffering at the hands of the rancheros: We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev. Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21) Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976). By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war (Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines, business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27 separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984). During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County, including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998). With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–20
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho. Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino and San Diego counties (Patterson 1971). Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s, Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents (Patterson 1971). Historical Review of the City of Murrieta After Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in 1821, Alta California became the northern frontier of Mexico and secularization of the missions took place throughout the next decade. The former mission lands were transferred to prominent Mexican families and the subdivision of former mission rancho lands was common during the ensuing years. The Murrieta area was eventually split into Rancho Temecula, Rancho Santa Rosa, and San Jacinto Rancho, then further divided into Pauba Rancho, La Laguna Rancho, and Little Temecula Rancho. In 1873, Ezekial (Esquial) Murrieta came to the area from central California, where he was a successful sheep rancher. He purchased Rancho Pauba and Rancho Temecula (52,000 acres) for $52,000 because the land reminded him of his Basque homeland and he was impressed with its potential for his sheep ranching endeavors. After Ezekiel Murrieta returned to Spain, married, and decided not to return to California, his brother, Juan Murrieta, along with several business partners, brought 100,000 sheep to the area (City of Murrieta 2015). The Southern Emigrant Trail, and later, the Butterfield Overland Stage, bisected Murrieta’s land. In 1882, the Murrieta brothers were deeded the right-of-way to the Southern Pacific Railroad.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–21
In 1884, the Temecula Land and Water Company bought and subdivided the land into 40-acre parcels. The railroad brought settlers to the area, who were attracted to the inexpensive land, which was often as low as five dollars per acre, and the valley soon reached a population of 800. These first pioneers also brought with them knowledge of farming fruit orchards and growing vast grain crops. Social activity centered on the Fountain House Hotel and the Guenther Family’s Murrieta Hot Springs Resort, which once served as the sheep dip for Murrieta’s flock (City of Murrieta 2015). Eventually, the Santa Fe Railroad purchased the railroad; however, it was rerouted due to a decade of flooding and Murrieta became a spur from Corona. The railroad was then closed and the last train left Murrieta in 1935 (City of Murrieta 2015). While ending the local boom, the absence of a rail line did not hinder the influx of residents settling in the area and Murrieta continued to grow. In just over 50 years, the population increased from 800 in 1890 to 1,200 in 1947. Very little changed in Murrieta until 1980, when a large influx of people came to settle in Temecula and the surrounding areas. A push was made for Murrieta to become an official city. Nearly 120 years after Juan Murrieta inhabited the area, Murrieta became an officially recognized city in 1991 (City of Murrieta 2015). 1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a one-mile radius was requested from the EIC at UCR on February 16, 2022 and results were received and processed by BFSA on June 3, 2022. The records search results indicate that a total of 78 cultural resources are located within a one-mile radius of the project (Table 1.4–1). The majority of these (N=59) are historic, and include 37 historic single-family properties, two historic fence lines, two historic ancillary buildings, one historic grain elevator, one historic multi-family property, the historic Ray’s Café building, one historic private landing strip, two historic wells, five historic commercial buildings, one historic ranch, the historic Women’s Clubhouse building, three historic refuse deposits, and two historic roads. Prehistoric resources (N=17) located within a one-mile radius of the property include six prehistoric artifact scatters, two prehistoric lithic scatters, one prehistoric midden deposit, and eight prehistoric isolates. In addition, two multicomponent sites consisting of a prehistoric lithic scatter and historic refuse scatter are located within a mile radius of the project. The complete records search results can be found within Appendix B. Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Recorded Within a One-Mile Radius of the Project Site Number(s) Site Description RIV-1003, RIV-6240, RIV-6672, RIV-6673, RIV-6674, and RIV-7933 Prehistoric artifact scatter Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–22
Site Number(s) Site Description RIV-1085 and RIV-7305 Prehistoric lithic scatter P-33-018624 Prehistoric midden deposit P-33-008756, P-33-012344, P-33-012345, P-33-017973, P-33-019856, P-33-024903, P-33-028178, and P-33-028525 Prehistoric isolate RIV-1086 and RIV-7649/H Prehistoric lithic scatter and historic refuse scatter RIV-5517H and RIV-5518H Historic fence line RIV-5519H and P-33-015881 Historic ancillary building P-33-07438 Historic grain elevator P-33-007431, P-33-007432, P-33-007433, P-33-007434, P-33-007439, P-33-007442, P-33-007443, P-33-007445, P-33-007446, P-33-007448, P-33-007452, P-33-007456, P-33-007465, P-33-007467, P-33-007468, P-33-007469, P-33-007470, P-33-007471, P-33-007472, P-33-007474, P-33-007475, P-33-007480, P-33-013925, P-33-015786, P-33-015884, P-33-015889, P-33-016003, P-33-016004, P-33-016007, P-33-016008, P-33-016009, P-33-016012, P-33-016013, P-33-016014, P-33-016015, P-33-017350, and P-33-024204 Historic single-family property
P-33-016011 Historic multi-family property P-33-007464 Historic Ray’s Café building P-33-007451 Historic private landing strip P-33-012524 and P-33-013396 Historic well P-33-015787, P-33-015788, P-33-015883, P-33-015885, and P-33-016005 Historic commercial building P-33-028833 Historic ranch P-33-016000 Historic religious building (Women’s Clubhouse) P-33-018623, RIV-11,794, and P-33-028179 Historic refuse deposit P-33-023953 and RIV-12,709 Historic road The records search results also indicate that 119 previous studies have been conducted within one mile of the project, three of which included the subject property (Brunzell 2012; Keller 1995; Love et al. 2001). The study conducted by Keller in 1995 was a large overview of 288 acres of land for the Murrieta Hot Springs Road – Madison Avenue Corridor Master Development Plan. The study conducted by Love et al. in 2001 was a historical/archaeological survey report covering a large 720-acre area for the Jefferson Avenue Business Corridor. The final study by Brunzell conducted in 2012 was an archaeological testing program for the Jefferson Crosswinds and Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–23
Disposal Site Project which primarily focused on archaeological sites outside of the project area. As such, although they overlap the current project, none of the previous studies directly address the subject property and no cultural resources have ever been identified within it. Additionally, a review of historic maps and aerial photographs for the project shows that the subject property has historically remained vacant. A line of trees is visible within the project along Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the 1967 aerial photograph, but they are gone by 1978. Otherwise, the property appears to have been graded and cleared of vegetation a few times but has largely been left undeveloped. Although the available data does not indicate the presence of any recorded archaeological resources, for background research, the absence of positive results does not necessarily indicate the absence of historic resources. When available, the updated EIC records search may still indicate the presence of recorded sites within or in the vicinity of the project. BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC, which was returned with positive results for sacred, religious, or ceremonial sites recorded within the vicinity of the subject property. The NAHC recommended contacting the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians. BFSA subsequently sent letters asking for further information to all tribes listed in the NAHC response letter. As of the date of this report, BFSA has received responses from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, both of whom deferred to tribes more local to the project. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C. 1.5 Applicable Regulations Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the city of Murrieta in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important. 1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following: 1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–24
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as: 1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource 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. 2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: a) 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 CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–25
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, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites: 1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply. 3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Sections 15064.5(d) and 15064.5(e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides: (d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–26
Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from: 1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). 2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.0–1

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN

The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is southwestern Riverside County. The scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the project included the survey of an approximately 18- acre area. Given the area involved, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of identified resources.

Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into conside ration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of a resource to address regional research topics and issues.

Although elementary resource evaluation programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific resear ch questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions take into account the size and location of the project discussed above.

Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual?
• Do the types of any located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited?
• How do located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area?
• How do located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley environments of the region?

Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to underst and settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival re search were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind:

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.0–2
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site ty pe and function, context of the resource(s) , and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural resources identified.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0–1

3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS

The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire approximately 18-acre project, and the preparation of this technical report . This study was conducted in conformance with City of M urrieta environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA.

Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995) and the City of Murrieta Municipal Code.

3.1 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenl y spaced survey transects set approximately 10 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located were closely inspected.

Photographs documenting survey areas and overall survey conditions were taken frequently.

3.2 Results of the Field Survey
On November 23, 2021, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith conducted an intuitive review of the property to determine if any locations of historic or prehistoric resources or potential use areas were visible. The property can be characterized as completely disturbed by clearing and disking, road improvements on the west and north, and partial channelization of the drainage that passes through the property (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–4). Aside from vegetation in the existing drainage, no native vegetation was visible on the subject property. No bedrock or other natural features were noted that might have been associated with prehistoric occupation. Although non- native vegetation over most of the property was occasionally dense and matted, there were sufficient areas available for good ground visibility to search for any evidence of archaeological sites or deposits. The survey covered sufficient areas on both the east and west sides of the drainage to conclude that either no cultural resources were present on the subject property or, if artifacts were present, these were not associated with any significant archaeological site of significance.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0–2

Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project, facing north along the existing creek.

Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the project, facing northwest.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0–3

Plate 3.2–3: View along the existing creek alignment on the property.

Soil has been pushed along the creek edge as a flood control berm.

Plate 3.2–4: View of the southeastern corner of the property, which is separated from the balance of the property by the existing creek.

This area has also been highly disturbed by past agricultural use.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.0–1

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Phase I archaeological assessment for the Jefferson Avenue Project was negative for the presence of cultural resources. However, the possibility always exists that past human or natural actions may have masked and buried an archaeological site , but the likelihood of that occurrence appears minimal. Therefore, there remains a potential for buried archaeological deposits to be present within the project boundaries and it is recommended that the project be allowed to proceed with the implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist during grading of the property. The cultural resources monitoring program recommended as a condition of approval for this property is presented in Section 4.1.

4.1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program
Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is recommended to ensure that if buried featur es (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they will be handled in a timely and proper manner. The scope of the monitoring program is provided below:

1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that a certified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program.

This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency.
2) The project applicant shall provide Native American monitoring during grading. The Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances and search for cultural materials. 3) The certified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. 4) During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) and tribal representative shall be on -site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist, to perform periodic inspections of the excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated.
5) Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed.
6) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.0–2
discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The lead agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area.

For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the lead agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the Riverside C ounty Coroner’s Office and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. 7) Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods.

The project archaeologist shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis.
8) All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
9) A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research co ntext shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include Department of Parks and Recreation Primary and Archaeological Site Forms.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5.0–1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED The archaeological survey program for the Jefferson Avenue Project was conducted by Principal Investigator Brian Smith. The report text was prepared by Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Andrew Garrison. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Elena Goralogia. The archaeological records search was provided by the EIC at UCR.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6.0–1

6.0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. June 8, 2022 Brian F. Smith Date Principal Investigator

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie 1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California. Brigandi, Phil 1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California. Brunzell, David 2012 Archaeological Testing Program, City of Murrieta Mass Grading and Control Plan, Jefferson Crosswinds and Disposal Site, Murrieta, Riverside County, California. BCR Consulting. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California. Byrd, Brian F. 1998 Harvesting the Littoral Landscape During the Late Holocene: New Perspectives from Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2):195–218. Caughey, John W. 1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chapman, Charles E. 1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York. City of Murrieta 2015 Murrieta History and Murrieta Timeline. Electronic documents, Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–2
http://www.murrieta.org/about/default.asp#.VpfuCpMrKi4 and http://www.murrieta. org/about/timeline.asp#.VpfuM5MrKi4, accessed December 28, 2015. Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San Francisco, California. Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors) 1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 101–111. Perspectives in California Archaeology 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Fagan, B. 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson. London. Gallegos, Dennis 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, editor. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (1). 1992 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 Terry Jones. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California. Gallegos, Dennis R. and Carolyn E. Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gunther, Jane Davies 1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing, Riverside, California. Handley, Charles 1967 The Sun City Story. Sun City News 2 February:6, 15–19. Sun City, California. Harris, Marvin 1991 Cultural Anthropology. HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, New York.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–3
Keller, Jean 1995 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road – Madison Avenue corridor Master Development Plan, 288.0 Acres of Land in Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center at University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California. Kennedy, M.P., and Morton, D.M. 2003 Preliminary geologic map of the Murrieta 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-189, version 1.0, scale 1:24,000. Koerper, Henry, C., Jonathan E. Ericson, Christopher E. Drover, and Paul E. Langenwalter, II 1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22(1):33–69. Kowta, Makoto 1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology (6). Kroeber, A.L. 1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Laylander, Don (editor) 1985 Some Linguistic Approaches to Southern California’s Prehistory. Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1):14–58. Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta 2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California. Love, Bruce, Bai “Tom” Tang, Daniel Ballester, and Melissa Hernandez 2001 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Jefferson Avenue Business Corridor, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. CRM Tech. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California. Martin, P.S. 1967 Prehistoric Overkill. Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–4
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974. Masters, Patricia M. 1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London. Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2). Miller, J. 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis. University of California, San Diego. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Moriarty, James R., III 1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Topological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4(4):20–30. Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–46. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 8, 2022. Patterson, Tom 1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California. Pourade, Richard F. 1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. 1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. Raven-Jennings, Shelly, Brian F. Smith, and Johnna L. Buysse 1996 The Results of a Cultural Resource Study at the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, County of San Diego. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–5
San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. In San Diego Museum Papers (No. 3 – 1989 printing). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California. Rolle, Andrew F. 1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty, III 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3). Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty, III 1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs. Unpublished report on file at the City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California. Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1). Sutton, Mark Q. 2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):33–93. 2011a The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1–74. 2011b A Prehistory of North America. Routledge, New York, New York. Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill K. Gardener 2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1–64. True, Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3). 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County. The Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–6
Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230. Warren, Claude N. (editor) 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast. In Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14. Warren, Claude N. and D.L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory. In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California. Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California, Los Angeles. Wirths, Todd A. 2022 Paleontological Assessment for the Jefferson Avenue Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A

Resumes of Key Personnel

Brian F . Smith, MA Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road — Suite A — Phone: (858) 679-8218 — Fax: (858) 679-9896 — E-Mail: [email protected]

Education Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982 Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975 Professional Memberships Society for California Archaeology Experience Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Professional Accomplishments These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in the Southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted. Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2 Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001). 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014). San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018). Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area. Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area (2017). The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015). Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017). Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007). 4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns. Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego. Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty.

Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study. City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the city and county of San Diego. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- September 2002. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4 for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000.

Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5 Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000. Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000. Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor—included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999. Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999. Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997- January 2000. Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995.

Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Jefferson Avenue Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)