Cultural Resources Survey for the
Montiel Road Office Project
San Marcos, California
Prepared for
City of San Marcos
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
1927 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
P 619.308.9333
RECON Number 9257
August 28, 2019
Harry J. Price, Project Archaeologist
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
i
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Authors: Harry J. Price, Project Archaeologist
Consulting Firm: RECON Environmental, Inc.
1927 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Report Date: August 28, 2019
Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the Montiel Road Office Project, San Marcos, California
Submitted to: Saima Qureshy, Principal Planner, City of San Marcos Prepared for: City of San Marcos
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Project Number: RECON Number 9257
USGS Quadrangle Map: 7.5-minute, Valley Center, CA
Keywords: Negative archaeological survey ; Valley Center quad, City of San Marcos
RECON Environmental was retained by Unite Pacific, Inc . to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed Montiel Road Office project. The survey covered the entire
2.14 acres of the two parcels located at 2355/2375 Montiel Road (assessor parcel numbers 228-370-2000 and 228-370-3900).
The applicant proposes to construct a two -story administration building and parking lot .
The cultural resources survey took place on June 12, 2019, using a survey interval of approximately eight meters across the pro perty. The RECON archaeologist s were accompanied by a Luiseño representative from Saving Sacred Sites.
No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found during the survey of the project property. No prehistoric or h istoric cultural resou rces were mapped on or immediately adjacent to the property in the record search files. Therefore , the project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, the possibility exists for buried prehistoric archaeological de posits on-site. Because of this factor, RECON recommends that all ground-disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitors representing the Luiseño community.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Management Summary ............................................................................................. 1
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Natural Setting................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Cultural Setting ............................................................................................... 5
3.1 Paleoindian Period ............................................................................................. 5
3.2 Archaic Period .................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Late Prehistoric Period ...................................................................................... 6
3.4 Ethnohistory ....................................................................................................... 7
3.5 Spanish Period .................................................................................................... 9
3.6 Mexican Period ................................................................................................. 10
3.7 American Period ............................................................................................... 10
3.8 City of San Marcos ........................................................................................... 11
4.0 Background Research .................................................................................. 11
4.1 Record Search and Aerial Photographs ........................................................... 11
4.2 Native American Consultation......................................................................... 13
5.0 Research Design ............................................................................................ 13
6.0 Methods............................................................................................................ 14
7.0 Report of Findings ........................................................................................ 14
8.0 Management Considerations ...................................................................... 20
9.0 Certification and Project Staff ................................................................... 21
10.0 References Cited ............................................................................................ 21
FIGURES
1: Regional Location .......................................................................................................... 2 2: Project Location on USGS map .................................................................................... 3 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ......................................................................... 4 Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
PHOTOGRAPHS
1: Typical Vegetation Cover in the Southern Two-thirds of the Project Property .........15 2: Dense Ground Cover in the Southern End of the Project Property ............................15 3: Sparse Ground Cover Around the Houses in the Northern One-third of the Project Property .........................................................................................................16 4: Cleared Area in the Central Portion of the Project Property .....................................16 5: Typical Wood Framed Structures ................................................................................17 6: Typical Pen-type Structure ..........................................................................................17 7: Typical Debris Pile in the Central Portion of the Project Property ............................18 8: House at 2355 Montiel Road, Looking Southwest at Façade .....................................18 9: House at 2375 Montiel Road, Looking south at Façade ..............................................19
ATTACHMENT
1: Native American Heritage Commission Response Letter and Tribal Responses
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT
1: Records Search : Historical Resources with Primary and Trinomial Designations ; Reports; Historic Addresses
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
Management Summary
RECON Environmental , Inc. (RECON) was retained by Unite Pacific, Inc . to conduct a cultural resources survey, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Register of Historical Resources for the proposed Montiel Road Office project.
The survey covered the entire 2.14 acres of the parcel s located at 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road, in the city of San Marcos. Assessor parcel numbers [APNs] are 228-370-2000 and 228-370-3900. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story administrative office building and parking lot.
RECON conducted a self -search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultur al resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project property. A total of 25 cultural resources have been documented within one- mile of the project boundaries, including 5 historic period , 19 prehistoric period, and one with no site description The cult ural resources survey took place on June 12, 2019, using a survey interval of approximately eight meters across the property. The RECON archaeologist s were accompanied by a Luise ño representative from Saving Sacred Sites. No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found during the survey of the project property. The project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, the possibility exists for the buried prehistoric archaeological deposits to exist on -site. Because of this factor, RECON recommends that all ground -disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitors representing the Luiseño community.
1.0 Introduction
The proposed Montiel Road Office project covers the entire 2.14 acres of the property consisting of two APNs and located at 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road in the city of San Marcos (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The applicant proposes to construct a two-story administrative office building and parking lot. The first floor would consist of 15,712 square feet, complete with a lobby, a “café” area with outdoor seating, bathrooms, mechanical and elevator areas, and three individual office areas available for l ease. The second floor would consist of 17,252 square feet, complete with four individual office areas available for lease, bathroom, and mechanical and elevator areas. The second floor would also contain an outdoor deck area above the main entrance to the building. On- site surface parking would be configured in order to accommodate the proposed buildings, resulting in a total of 185 parking stalls.
The property is located within the Richland Neighborhood, as defined by the San Marcos General Plan. It is bounded on the south by State Route 78 (SR-78), on the north by Montiel Road, and on the west and east by commercial development s. The areas north of Montiel Road are predominantly single -family residences with occasional commercial development.
The area east of the project betw een Montiel Road and SR -78 is commercial, and the area south of SR-78 is predominately commercial and light industrial.
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
kj
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
Daley Ranch
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Trails
Regional
Park
Cleveland NF
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
El Capitan
Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
S
a
n
Di e g u i t o
R
i v e r
S a
n
Lu i s
R e y
R
i v e r
S
an
Di e g u i t o
R
i v e r
S a n t a
Y s a b
e
l
C r e e k
S
w
e
e
tw
a
t er
R
i v
e
r
E
s
c on d
id
o
C
r ee k
S a n D i e g o
R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
San
Pasqual
Reservation
Rincon Reservation
Sycuan
Reservation
La Jolla Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Valley Center
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Hidden
Meadows
Jamul
Lake
San Marcos
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter Gardens
UV163
UV78
UV54
UV56
UV76
UV75
UV125
UV67
UV94
UV52
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La
Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Vista
kj
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
Daley Ranch
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Trails
Regional
Park
Cleveland NF
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
El Capitan
Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
S
a
n
Di e g u i t o
R
i v e r
S a
n
Lu i s
R e y
R
i v e r
S
an
Di e g u i t o
R
i v e r
S a n t a
Y s a b
e
l
C r e e k
S
w
e
e
tw
a
t er
R
i v
e
r
E
s
c on d
id
o
C
r ee k
S a n D i e g o
R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
San
Pasqual
Reservation
Rincon Reservation
Sycuan
Reservation
La Jolla Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Valley Center
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Hidden
Meadows
Jamul
Lake
San Marcos
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter Gardens
UV163
UV78
UV54
UV56
UV76
UV75
UV125
UV67
UV94
UV52
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La
Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Vista
0 5 Miles [
M:\JOBS5\9257\common_gis\fig1.mxd 2/20/2019 bma
SAN DIEGO
RIVERSIDE
SAN BERNARDINO
ORANGE
MEXICO
Project Locationkj
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Valley Ce nter, 1996, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant 0 2,000 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9257\common_gis\fig2_arctec.mxd 7/1/2019 bma FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
DEO
DAR RD
MONTIEL
RD
UV78
DEO
DAR RD
MONTIEL
RD
UV78
Image Source: Nearmap (flown February 2019)
0 100 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9257\common_gis\fig3_arctec.mxd 7/1/2019 bma Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
2.0 Natural Setting
The study area is located on the western edge of the Escondido Valley, with the foothills of the Merriam Mountains to the north and a small unnamed group of hills to the south. The headwaters of San Marcos Creek are approximately 2.6 miles to the west and Escondido Creek is app roximately 1.3 miles to the southeast. E levations on the project range from 690 to 670 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
Soils on the project parcel consist primarily of Vista coarse sandy loams, with Placentia sandy loam in the south ( U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 ). The Vista coarse sandy loam soil series is sandy loam soils derived from granodiorite or quartz diorite, and occur in uplands with slopes ranging from 5 to 65 percent. In a representative profile the surface layer is dark greyish brown to dark brown, neutral to slightly acidic sandy loam. The subsoil is dark brown to yellowish brown, slightly acidic coarse sandy loam. Below this is strongly weathered granitic rock (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973).
Placentia sandy loams are moderately well-drained sandy loams with a sandy clay subsoil that form in granitic alluvium. A typical profile has a surface layer of brown, medium to slightly acid sandy loam appr oximately 13 inches thick. The subsoil is brown, moderately alkaline sandy clay/sandy clay loam about 40 inches thick. The substrate is yellowish- brown, moderately alkaline sandy clay loam (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973).
The project area is dominated by mixed non -native grasses and weeds, with a substantial number of exotic trees and landscape plants . Prior to European and American settlement the area would likely have been covered by chaparral with patches of coastal sage scrub, sagebrush scrub, and open live oak woodland. Mixed chaparral occurs on slopes, ridgelines, and drainages. Sagebrush scrub occurs as medium to large patches in the larger drainages .
These plant communities contain a number of plants of economic importance to p rehistoric populations. The dietary staples were seeds from various grasses , and sages and acorns from various oak species. However, a wide variety of other plants were also utilized for foods and for fibers for making basketry, clothing, structures, and t ools (Balls 1962; Bean and Saubel 1972).
3.0 Cultural Setting
3.1 Paleoindian Period
The Paleoindian Period in northern San Diego County is most closely associated with the San Dieguito Complex, as identified by Malcolm Rogers (1938, 1939, 1945) and Claude N.
Warren (1961, 1964, 1966, 1967). The San Dieguito Complex includes the Lake Mohave sites, Death Valley I sites, and Playa I and II sites according to Warren (1967) and represents a generalized hunting tradition ( Moratto 2004). The San Dieguito Complex can be found in all of San Diego County, parts of Riverside County, north through the Mohave Desert, east through western Arizona , and south into northern Baja California and northern Sonora ( Rogers 1966). The San Dieguito Complex assemblage is dominated b y Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
finely made scraping and chopping tools, such as well-made scraper planes, choppers, scraping tools, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and leaf -shaped projectile points.
These tools were often made of fine- grained, slate -green felsite, or fine -grained basalt.
Projectile points consist of Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types along with non -diagnostic leaf-shaped points. Evidence of seed grinding technology (manos and metates) is scarce.
San Dieguito sites in the desert are typically found around dry Pleistocene playas (Moratto 2004). Site locations and assemblages suggest a subsistence emphasis on lacustrine resources and big game hunting.
3.2 Archaic Period
The Archaic Period in northern San Diego County is represented by the Pauma Complex, a local mani festation of the widespread Millingstone Horizon ( Wallace 1955) . The Millingstone Horizon has been identified throughout coastal southern and central California and includes La Jolla Complex of the San Diego region and the Pauma Complex in the foothills of San Diego and Riverside counties. These have very similar assemblages and are thought to be different environmental adaptations of the same culture ( True 1958).
A similar assemblage has been identified in the Cajon Pass area of Riverside County and is referred to as the Sayles Complex ( Kowta 1969). This is thought to be transitional between the Pinto Complex of the Mojave Desert and the Millingstone Horizon of the coast (Kowta 1969:1).
The Pauma Complex assemblage suggests a generalized subsistence focus with an emphasis on hard seeds. This emphasis is indicated by the appearance of nu merous slab and basin metates and the adoption of a mixed cobble/core-based tool assemblage composed primarily of crudely made choppers, scrapers, and cobble hammerstones.
Pauma Complex sites are typically found on terraces or ridges above a water source such as a stream. They often do not have discernible midden development, but they may have subsurface deposits. While they typically have numerous portable metates and manos, they lack bedrock milling, and mortars and pestles (True and Waugh 1981:101-102).
Major technological change within the Archaic Period in San Diego County appears to have been limited mainly to the introduction of large side -notched and Elko series projectile points. There seems to have been some reorientation in settlement from coasta l to inland settings during the latter portion of this period in northern San Diego County. This settlement shift appears to have occurred around 4,000 years ago and is thought to relate to the final phases of Holocene sea level rise and the resulting silt ation of coastal lagoons.
Prior to this time, the lagoons had been highly productive sources of shellfish for La Jollan people (Gallegos 1987; Warren et al. 1993).
3.3 Late Prehistoric Period
Near the coast and in the Peninsular Mountains beginning approx imately 1,500 years ago, patterns began to emerge that suggest the ethnohistoric Kumeyaay. The Late Prehistoric Period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
and 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 but effective technological innovations. The late prehistoric archaeology of the San Dieg o coast and foothills is characterized by the Cuyamaca Complex. The Cuyamaca Complex is described by the presence of steatite arrow shaft straighteners, steatite pendants, steatite comales (heating stones), Tizon Brown Ware pottery, ceramic figurines remin iscent of Hohokam styles, ceramic “Yuman bow pipes,” ceramic rattles, miniature pottery , various cobble- based tools (e.g., scrapers, choppers, hammerstones), bone awls, manos and metates, mortars and pestles, and Desert Side - notched (more common) and Cottonwood Series projectile points (True 1970).
Other parts of northern San Diego County are also represented by the San Luis Rey Complex (Meighan 1954; True et al. 1974). First described by Meighan (1954) and based on excavations at Pala some 20 miles north of the study area, San Luis Rey I sites are associated with bedrock milling features and often have recognizable midden soils. The artifact assemblage includes manos and metates, Cottonwood Triangular, and less frequently Desert Side- notched type projecti le points, drills, bifacially flaked knives, bone awls, occasional steatite arrow shaft straighteners, and bone and shell ornaments ( True and Waugh 1981:87). The Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side -notched points are both smaller than earlier types, sugg esting the introduction of bow -and-arrow technology into the region.
San Luis Rey II consists of the same assemblage with the addition of Tizon Brown Ware ceramics, red and black pictographs, cremation remains in urns, and historic materials such as glass beads and metal objects. T rue (1966) demonstrated that the San Luis Rey Complex almost certainly represents the ancestors of the Luiseño.
Meighan argued that ceramics, probably introduced into north San Diego County from the south, appeared about 1750 A. D. and were a product of indigenous diffusion that appeared at about the same time or slightly earli er than the Spanish arrival . In contrast, True et al. (1974) suggested that pottery may have appeared as early as 1200 to 1600 A.D . Later, Griset (1996) obt ained 22 accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates from residue on pottery sherds, and she reviewed and recalibrated a number of others. She found four dates earlier than 800 A.D.. The earliest pottery date in San Diego County according to her study was from Ystagua at 549 A.D. (1996:251-253). However, her data suggest that pottery was not common in San Diego County until about 1400 A.D . (1996:262). The earliest date for Tizon Brown Ware in the San Diego region is not long after the advent of Lower Colorado Buff Ware , which was dated as early as 430 A.D. in the vicinity of Blythe ( Hildebrand 2003:258-259).
3.4 Ethnohistory
The study area falls along the border of the Luiseño and Kumeyaay tribal territories (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2014), which can be described as a line following Agua Hedionda Creek, extending northeasterly inland towards Lake Henshaw, north into Riverside County, and west through San Juan Capistrano to the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Kumeyaay Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
occupied the area south of A gua Hedionda into what is now Baja California and east into the Imperial Valley . Spanish explorers and missionaries noted that this geopolitical boundary was not static but rather fluid and dynamic (Luomala 1978:593). Because of this fluidity, the San Marcos area could have been inhabited by either group during the late Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric periods (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2014) . Work by Gallegos (Gallegos et al. 2002) and Comeau (Comeau et al. 2012) has attributed nearby archaeological resources to t he Luise ño. This evidence supports Sparkman’s (1908) attribution of the area to the Luiseños.
The Luiseño are the most southwesterly of the Shoshonean or Uto -Aztecan speakers. The basic unit of Luiseño social structure was the clan triblet. The triblet was composed of patrilineally related people who were politically and economically autonomous from neighboring triblets. Unlike other Takic-speaking tribes that surrounded them, the Luiseño do not appear to have been organized into exogamous moieties, but may have been loosely divided into mountain-oriented groups and ocean -oriented groups (Bean and Shipek 1978).
One or more clans would have resided together in a village (Oxendine 1980). A heredit ary village chief held a position that controlled economic, religious, and warfare powers (Bean and Shipek 1978). The chief had an assistant and an advisory council of shamans and ritual specialists. These positions were also hereditary, with successors being selected from the advisor’s lineage.
Luiseño settlement syst ems have been carefully reconstructed on the basis of extensive ethnographic and ethnohistoric research (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908; Strong 1929; White 1963). A Luiseño clan controlled one, or possibly more, specified territories, called rancherias. White (1963) suggest s that the average inland rancheria had a territory of approximately 30 square miles. He suggested that the Luiseño settlement system consisted of a series of villages or rancherias located on terraces above a valley bottom watercourse (e.g., the San Luis Rey River). Villages were usually located in defensible locations in sheltered canyons or coves, or on the sides of slopes in warm thermal zones, near reliable water sources. The rancheria owned territory in a contiguou s strip leading from the valley bottom to upland areas. This vertical pattern of rancheria territory facilitated gathering plant foods through the year. In early spring, tubers and berries first ripened along the watercourse below the rancheria. As spring turned to summer, chaparral plants near the rancheria became ripe. Later, those at a higher elevation above the rancheria ripened. In fall, people moved temporarily to higher elevations (e.g., Palomar Mountain) for the acorn harvest (White 1963).
A wide va riety of plants growing in the various biotic communities between the coast and mountains were utilized by the Luiseño, including acorns, annual grasses , seeds, yucca, sage, chia, lemonade berry, manzanita, and other wild greens and fruits (Kroeber 1925) These resources become available at different times of the year, prompting moves to different campsites. In addition to plant- associated moves, trips to coastal camps to exploit marine resources such as shellfish, fish, and marine mammals would take place.
According to most ethnographic accounts, acorns were considered the most important food source (Bean and Shipek 1978). Since acorns mature at differing rates between groves, and Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
even within individual groves, movement from place to place would have been necessary to be able to effectively harvest the annual acorn crop. Acorns could be harvested in one of two ways, either gathered from the ground after they had fallen or knocked off the tree with long sticks. After harvesting, acorns could either be proces sed into meal or stored for winter. Acorns had to be dry to be stored to prevent spoilage. Acorns to be processed were first shelled, then worked lightly with a pestle, and winnowed to remove the thin seed covering. Next , acorns were pounded to a fine flour and leached to remove the tannins.
After this, acorn flour was ready to be cooked
Baskets, both coiled and twined, were used in gathering, preparation, and storage of food (Bean and Shipek 1978). Basket size and shape depended on its use. Pottery vessel s were used for cooking and storage. Pottery was made using the paddle and anvil technique, and was seldom decorated (Bean and Shipek 1978). Nets and pouches made of cordage and animal skins were used for carrying food and tools.
Animal resources used by the Luiseño included most of the mammals occurring in their territory, except for predator animals and tree squirrels (Bean and Shipek 1978). Reptiles were also avoided as a food source. Birds hunted included quail, ducks, and dove s. Larger animals were hunted with the bow and arrow, while smaller game was caught using nets, deadfalls, slings, and throwing sticks. Game drives were also used for hunting rabbits and deer. Coastal marine animals exploited included sea mammals, fish, cr ustaceans, and mollusks (Bean and Shipek 1978). Basketry fish traps, seines, dip nets, bone, and shell hooks were used. Dugout and light balsa canoes were used for near -shore ocean fishing (Bean and Shipek 1978).
3.5 Spanish Period
The Spanish Period in Al ta California (1769– 1821) represents a time of European exploration and settlement. Military and religious contingents established the San Diego Presidio and the San Diego Mission in 1769, San Carlos Borromeo (Carmel) in 1770, and San Gabriel Arcangel in 1771. The opening of the mission system created the need to link Alta California with Sonora, Mexico. Juan Bautista de Anza of Tubac was commissioned to open up a road across the Colorado Desert to San Gabriel and on to Monterey. Mission San Luis Rey de Francia, the closest mission to the project, was founded on June 13, 1798 by Padre Fermin Lasu én. Two sub-missions, San Antonio de Pala Asistencia and Las Flores Estancia, were established in the early 1800s to support Mission San Luis Rey. The project is on the far eastern end of Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho, which was run by Mission San Luis Rey for cattle grazing.
The Spanish mission system used forced Native American labor to produce goods and provide services needed for European settlement. Th e mission system also introduced horses, cattle, sheep, and agricultural goods and implements as well as new construction methods and architectural styles. Also with the arrival of the Spanish came devastating epidemics and very high death rates. According to available mission records, the worst year was 1806 when a measles epidemic spread through southern California. An estimated 33.5 percent of the Indian population along the coast died (Cook 1976:424).
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
3.6 Mexican Period
The Mexican Period (1821–1848) retained many of the Spanish institutions and laws. While Spanish and Mexican settlement was focused on coastal Alta California, exploration of inland areas continued, often during the course of pursuing neophytes that had run away from the missions . In 1824, Santiago Arguello, an officer of the San Diego Presidio “discovered” San Felipe Valley, which opened the route through present day Warner Springs and Riverside and on to the San Gabriel Mission. This route, which became known as the Sonora Road, soon bec ame the official Mexican mail route ( Gudde and Bright 2004 ; Lawton 1976:58).
The missions were secularized in 1834 , opening vast tracts of former mission lands for private use and settlement. Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho was granted to Don José Maria Alvarado in 1834 (Pourade 1969). Cattle ranching dominated the southern California economy, and the hide and tallow trade with New England merchant ships increased during the early part of the Mexican Period. Native American communities continued to decline, particularly those close to the coast. However, some Native Americans found jobs as vaqueros, laborers, gardeners, and housekeepers (Rolle 1998:57). Immediately east of the project was El Rincón del Diablo Rancho, granted to Don Juan Bautista Alvarado in 1843.
El Rincón del Diablo occupied the valley which now contains the city of Escondido.
3.7 American Period
The signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which signaled the end of the Mexican–American War, gave Alta California, the northern three-quarters of Arizona, New Mexico, a greatly enlarged Texas, and southern parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah to the United States (Rolle 1998:91). The treaty guaranteed citizenship to former Mexican citizens if they chose to stay in the new lands of the United States and it promised to respect their property. Indians had been granted Mexican citizenship in 1821, but the Americans never recognized their legal claims to U.S. citizenship, to property rights, or to other civil rights.
In 1850 California was admitted to the Union as a free state (Phillips 1996:60-61).
On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered by John W. Marshall at Sutter’s Fort in the central Sierra Nevada foothills. Sutter and Marshall did their best to keep it a secret, but the news of the discovery was published on March 15 in the San Francisco Californian newspaper. The subsequent Gold Rush launched an immigrant tide , which engulfed many of the Spanish and Mexican cultural traditions and eliminated many remaining vestiges of Native American culture. Many Mexican ranchos were overrun by forty-niners or dissolved in land claim disputes (Rolle 1998). Indian Rancherias were supposedly recognized by the American government in the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo but not in reality.
The homestead system and the railroad encouraged American settlement in California after the Civil War, but settlement was slow in southern California. Most communities and ranches in northern San Diego and southern Riverside counties were not established until the land booms of the 1880s following completion of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads linking San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino with the East.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
3.8 City of San Marcos
By the late 1850s part of Los Vallecitos de San Marcos had been sold to Cave Couts , who primarily used the parcels to raise livestock. The remainder of the grant, sold to Lorenzo Soto by Jose Alvarado’s widow, Lugarda Osuna, was patented by the U.S. Land Commission in 1883 ( Carrol 1975:40 ). Major Gustavus French Merriam soon after established the first permanent European settlement in the North Twin Oaks Valley. On the 160- acre homestead, Merriam began wine and honey production (City of San Marcos 2010).
Not long after Major Merriam’s settlement, German and Dutch immigrants began moving into the area in the early 1880s. By 1883, John H. Barham founded the first town in the area, just few miles south of the Merriam’s settlement . N amed “Barham Township,” the new town site had a post office, a blacksmith, a feed store , and a weekly newspaper by 1884. The San Marcos Land Company purchased nearly all of the San Marcos land formerly owned by the Couts family in 1887, dividing the land into planned community tracts , establishing the town of San Marcos (City of San Marcos 2010). The arrival of the Santa Fe Railroad brought more people to the San Marcos area, but its siting outside the town forced the community to move the town center to present day Mission Road and P ico Avenue. By the mid -1900s, dairies and poultry production became critical to the area’s economic development (City of San Marcos 2010).
San Marcos saw another period of rapid growth after 1956 when it established a water connection with the Colorado River water supply . With more water came more opportunities for small businesses. Through the 1960s, the city slowly gained new residents but by the 1970s, San Marcos became the third fastest -growing city in the state with a population of 17,479. During the 1980s, San Marcos almost doubled its population to 33,800. Growth has continued to boom in San Marcos bringing the city’s present population to over 90,000 (City of San Marcos 2019).
4.0 Background Research
4.1 Record Search and Aerial Photographs
RECON conducted a self -search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, which is a member of the California Historical Resources Information System.
The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project property . A total of twenty-five cultural resources ha ve been documented within one-mile of the project boundaries (Confidential Attachment 1; Table 1), including five historic period, nineteen prehistoric period, and one with no site description.
A summary of the available site data appears in Table 1. The closest recorded cultural resources are two sing le bedrock milling features, CA -SDI-16222 and CA -SDI-16223, mapped approximately one-half mile to the southeast of the project. Sixty -six studies have been conducted within a one -mile radius of the project area , two of which included the project within their boundaries . One was a 1976 survey for the Richland Neighborhood Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
study (report number SD -00225), and the second was a 2003 records search/literature search for the Vall ecitos Water District ( report number SD-14140). There are 24 historic addresses listed within one mile of the project, The closest of which is approximately one - half mile east. Record search maps and resources lists are included in Confidential Attachment 1.
Table 1
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One-Mile Radius Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Period
P-37-000152 CA-SDI-152 Habitation Site with Milling Prehistoric P-37-000153 CA-SDI-153 No Information Unknown
P-37-001035 CA-SDI-1035 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-005210 CA-SDI-5210,
Loci A and B
Prehistoric Habitation Site/
Historic Trash Prehistoric/Historic
P-37-005503 CA-SDI-5503 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-005504 CA-SDI-5504 Milling with Artifacts Prehistoric P-37-005505 CA-SDI-5505,
Loci A and B Habitation Site Prehistoric
P-37-007785 CA-SDI-7785 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-009828 CA-SDI-9828 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-009829 CA-SDI-9829 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-009830 CA-SDI-9830 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-015576 CA-SDI-14325 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-024452 CA-SDI-16222 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-024453 CA-SDI-16223 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-024454 CA-SDI-16224 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-024455 CA-SDI-16225 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-024456 CA-SDI-16226 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-024546 N/A Radio Transmission Tower Historic
P-37-025576 CA-SDI-16989 Lithic Scatter with Bedrock
Milling Prehistoric
P-37-025577 CA-SDI-16990 Lithic scatter Prehistoric
P-37-012045 CA-SDI-12045H Spanish Eclectic House Historic P-37-012406 CA-SDI-12406H Craftsman Style House Historic P-37-035639 CA-SDI-22191 Wall Segment and Water
Basin Historic
P-37-035640 CA-SDI-22192 Milling Feature Prehistoric
P-37-035641 N/A Heavily-altered Craftsman
Bungalow Historic
Historic photographs by Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC available online (at http://www.historicaerials.com) were inspected to identify any previous uses of the property. A 1947 air photograph shows dirt roads/driveways and a small rectangular structure on the northern end of the project. The 1953 air photograph shows the dirt roads/driveways but the original structure is gone and a new small structure sits in the northcentral portion of the property. A 1964 air photograph has a new structure, possibly a house, in the northwest corner of the property. A 1967 air photograph does not show the house in the northwest corner, but the photo is unclear . The 1980 air photograph shows substantial development on the majority of the property. A new large structure, probably a Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
second house, is present southwest of the original house. Fences sect ion off portions of the property south of the houses and numerous trees have been planted. Trees obscure much of the property in the 1989, 1995, 1996, and 2002 aerial photographs, although the resolution on some is not good and minor changes would not be discernible. Some small structures, possibly storage sheds, are visible. In the 2003 air photograph the house s remain and the property appears to be a nursery, with what appear to be rows of potted plants and an additional storage shed set against the wes t edge of the property. Subsequent photographs show the houses but the nursery related material is gone.
4.2 Native American Consultation
A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento on January 17, 2019 requesting a se arch of their Sacred Lands File. A reply was received on January 22, 2019. The reply stated that a search of the Sacred Lands File was completed for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle information RECON provided with positive results (Att achment 1). The NAHC requested RECON contact the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians for further information. A letter of contact was sent out to the San Pasqual Band, as well as the other groups and individuals listed on the NAHC response on January 29, 2019. As of the writing of this report, replies have been received by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Jamul Indian Village of California.
Both groups replied that the project is not located within their Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, therefore they defer to tribes in the area.
As part of Assembly Bill 52 consultation, the City of San Marcos sent letters to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians , Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians , and the Rincon Band of Mission Indians on May 13, 2019 to solicit input for this project.
5.0 Research Design
The primary goals of this project are to determine whether cultural resources are present, document where these resources are and what they consist of, and attempt to determine the site’s time of occupation and function within the prehistoric settlement and economic systems. The kinds of research information available from a survey -level examination of a site’s surface are limited ; however, tentative eva luations of a site’s research potential can be made, and these tentative evaluations can be of considerable utility in the land use planning process.
There are also several important research questions that can benefit from simply knowing where sites are, what general time period they belong to, how big and complex they are, and what kind of economic activities may have taken place there. This kind of basic data may contribute to a number of regional economic, settlement, and chronological, subsistence, and lithic technology questions.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
6.0 Methods
The project area was surveyed by RECON archaeologist s Harry Price and Nathanial Yerka on June 12, 2019. Mr. Price and Mr. Yerka were accompanied by Native American monitor Banning Taylor III of Saving Sacred Site s. The field inspection was conducted on foot, in conditions of clear skies and strong daylight. Survey transect intervals were approximately eight meters, spaced across the property. Rodent holes and back dirt piles were inspected for any indication of subsurface cultural deposits. Photographs were taken to document the condition of the property at the time of the survey.
7.0 Report of Findings
The property is situated on a gentle north-south slope that has a net loss of 20 feet (689 feet AMSL to 668 AMS L) from the northwest corner to the southeast. The property is fully disturbed by landscaping, structures, dwellings, piles of construction material, concrete driveways and pads, vegetation clearing, fencing, and commercial signage. Vegetation is characterized as disturbed habitat and consists of exotic trees, bushes, high weeds, and grasses which have impacted the entirety of the property. Soil is predominately composed of a medium gray/brown sandy loam that increased with silt towards the southern property line.
Ground visibility was poor, averaging about 10 percent. Ground cover was densest in the southern two -thirds of the property, with areas of zero visibility (Photographs 1 and 2) .
Ground cover was thinnest in the northern third of the property around the dwellings where the weeds and grasses were mowed and extensive rodent activity exposed bare dirt (Photograph 3) . There was evidence of vegetation clearing in the central portion of the property, which exposed an approximate 35-foot-x-35-foot area of bare and disturbed topsoil where thick vegetation was removed (Photograph 4) . Substantial subsurface burrowing activity was observed in all areas of the property. These burrows were indicated by numerous small backdirt piles which in turn gave representativ e samples of area subsurface soil as well as presence/absence of cultural material.
There are at least eight structures of varying size and construction style associated with animal husbandry (most likely birds) on the property (Photographs 5 and 6) . These wood- framed structures are mostly topped with corrugated fiberglass roofing panels and sided with either plywood or metal wire fencing. Several large piles of construction material consisting mostly of cut plywood, cut framing wood, and fiberglass roofing panels are situated next to the animal enclosures (Photograph 7) . There are also several piles of discarded plastic and metal containers which may be associated with animal feed. Also noted was one circular concrete wall that was approximately 5 feet in diameter, 8 inches thick, and crested about 8 inches above the ground surface. The inner void was of unknown depth and filled with tires and possible dwelling rubbish. The wall may have once served as a cistern or a raised foundation to a structure.
There are also two single-story houses on the property , one at 2355 Montiel Road , and the other at 2375 Montiel Road (Photographs 8 and 9) . The house at 2355 Montiel Road was P:\9257\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 06/28/19
PHOTOGRAPH 1
Typical Vegetation Cover in the Southern Two-Thirds of the Project Property
PHOTOGRAPH 2
Dense Ground Cover in the Southern End of the Project Property
P:\9257\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 06/28/19
PHOTOGRAPH 3
Sparse Ground Cover Around the Houses in the Northern One-Third of the Project Property
PHOTOGRAPH 4
Cleared Area in the Central Portion of the Project Property
P:\9257\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 06/28/19
PHOTOGRAPH 5
Typical Wood Framed Structures
PHOTOGRAPH 6
Typical Pen-type Structure
P:\9257\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 06/28/19
PHOTOGRAPH 7
Typical Debris Pile in the Central Portion of the Project Property
PHOTOGRAPH 8
House at 2355 Montiel Road, Looking Southwest at Façade
P:\9257\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 06/28/19
PHOTOGRAPH 9
House at 2375 Montiel Road, Looking South at Façade
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
constructed in 1959 and is over 50 years old. The house was evaluated for significance under California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) significance in a separate document and determined not to be a significant historical resource . The house at 2375 was constructed in 1970 and was not evaluated as it is less than 50 years old and not potentially eligible under CEQA guideline.
8.0 Management Considerations
The key consideration for the management of cultural resources within the CEQA framework is their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). A resource must satisfy one or more of the qualifying criteria in order to be considered eligible for listing. In order to be eligible for listing in th e CRHR, a resource must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Cultural and historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. For the purposes of eligibility for CRHR, integrity is defined as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance" (California Office of Historic Preservation 2005:67).
No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found during the survey of the project property. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were mapped on or immediately adjacent to the property in the record search files. Therefore , the project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, because much of the property has been only superficially disturbed, the possibility exists for buried prehistoric archaeological deposits on -site. Because of this, RE CON recommends that all ground-disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitors representing the Luiseño community. If archaeological materials are identified during construction activities, work in the immediate area shall cease and an archaeologist meeting the City of San Marcos Qualifications Standards for Archaeology must evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, a data recovery program shall be implemented.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
According to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors shall immediately stop all activities in the immediate a rea of the find. The project archaeologist shall then inform the San Diego County Coroner and the City of San Marcos Planning Division , and the coroner would be permitted to examine the remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native Amer ican origin, the coroner would notify the NAHC and the Commission would identify the “Most Likely Descendent.”
9.0 Certification and Project Staff
This report was prepared in compliance with CEQA (Section 21083.2 of the Statutes and Appendix K of the Guid elines) and with policies and procedures of the City of San Marcos.
To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information contained in this report are accurate.
_____________________________________________
Project Archaeologist
The following individuals participated in the field tasks or preparation of this report.
Harry J. Price Project Archaeologist
Nathanial Yerka Archaeologist
Banning Taylor III Luiseño Native American Monitor
Benjamin Arp GIS Analyst
Stacey Higgins Senior Production Specialist
10.0 References Cited
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2014 Cultural Resources Study for the Mulberry Drive D evelopment Project, San Marcos. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Balls, Edward K.
1962 Early Uses of California Plants. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakah: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants . Malki Museum Press, Morongo Indian Reservation, Banning.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
Bean, Lowell, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol . 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
California Office of Historic Preservation
2005 Technical Assistance Series #10: California State Law and Historic Preservation:
Statues, Regulations and Administrative Policies Regarding Historic Preservation and Protection of Cultural and Historical Resources. Sacramento.
Carrol, William
1975 San Marcos: A Brief History. Coda Productions, San Marcos, California.
Comeau, Brad, Micah Hale, and Mark Becker
2012 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Palomar Station Project, San Marc os, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Cook, Shelburne F.
1976 The Population of the California Indians, 1769 -1970. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gallegos, D. R.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito–La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Res earch Papers 1:23-34.
Gallegos, Dennis R., Monica Guerrero, Jeff Flenniken, and Tracy Stopes 2002 Data Recovery Program for Packbell Site CA -SDI-5633, San Marcos, California .
Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, CA. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Griset, Suzanne
1996 Southern California Brown Ware. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Gudde, Erwin G., and William Bright
2004 California Place Names: Th e Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hildebrand, John
2003 Ceramics Excavated from the Lower Colorado River Region by the North Baja Pipeline Project. In A View Across the Cultural Landscape of the Lower Colorado Desert: Cultural Resource Investigations for the North Baja Pipeline Project edited by James H. Cleland and Rebecca McCorkle Apple, pp. 245-260. Document on file Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
with the Southeast Information Center, Imperial Valley College Desert Museum, Ocotillo, California.
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.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Lawton, Harry W.
1976 History and Ethnohistory of the Yuha Desert (1769- 1865). In Background to Prehistory of the Yuha Desert Region, edited by Philip J. Wilke, pp. 43-72. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Luomala, Katharine
1978 Tipai-Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institutio n, Washington, D.C.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227.
Moratto Michael
2004 California Archaeology. Reprint, Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC
1947– Historic photographs of the survey area. Accessed February 8, 2017. 2009 http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=2000&lon=- 117.0877&lat=32.701553&year=2005.
Oxendine, Joan
1980 The Luiseno Girls Ceremony. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2 (1)37-50.
Phillips, George H.
1996 The Enduring Struggle: Indians in California History. MTL, Inc., Sparks, Nevada.
Pourade, Richard F.
1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego . A Copley Book, Union -Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1938 Archaeological and Geological Investigations of the Culture Levels in an Old Channel of San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 37:344-45.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167-198. Albuquerque.
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West, edited by Richard F. Pourade . Union-Tribune.
San Diego, California.
Rolle, Andrew
1998 California: A History. Harlan Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois.
San Marcos, City of
2010 History. Accessed January 27, 2015. http://www.ci.san - marcos.ca.us/index.aspx?page=139.
2019 City of San Marcos website . Accessed July 8, 2019. https://www.san - marcos.net/live/about-us.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234.
Strong, William
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 26:1-358.
True, Delbert L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Department of Anthropology Publications, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
True, D. L., and G. Waugh
1981 Archaeological Investigations in Northern San Diego County, California: Frey Creek. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):84-115.
True, D. L., C. W. Meighan, and H. Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. December.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal A rchaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Autumn 1955), pp. 214-230.
University of New Mexico.
Warren, Claude N.
1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in California Prehistory . Archaeological Survey Annual Report (1960-1961). Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 5.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis . American Antiquity 32(2):168-185. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City.
Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer
1993 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods in Historic Properties Background Study by Brian F. Mooney and Associates. Document on file with the City of San Diego Clean Water Program.
White, Raymond
1963 Luiseno Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
ATTACHMENTS
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
ATTACHMENT 1
Native American Heritage Commission Response Letter
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Cultural and Environmental Department
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone: (916) 373-3710
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov
Twitter: @CA_NAHC
January 22, 2019
Harry Price
RECON Environmental
VIA Email to: [email protected]
RE: North Coast Church R-9257 Project, San Diego County
Dear Mr. Price:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consu lt with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email ad dress:
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Steven Quinn
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401
Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA,
92264
Phone: (
760
)
699
-
6800
Fax: (
760
)
699-6919
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401
Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA,
92264
Phone: (
760
)
699
-
6907
Fax: (
760
)
699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Barona Group of the Capitan
Grande
Edwin Romero, Chairperson
1095
Barona Road
Lakeside, CA,
92040
Phone: (
619
)
443
-
6612
Fax: (
619
)
443-0681
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Campo Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190
Church Road, Suite
1 Campo, CA,
91906
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
9046
Fax: (
619
)
478-5818
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Ewiiaapaayp Tribe
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054
Willows Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
6315
Fax: (
619
)
445-9126
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Ewiiaapaayp Tribe
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054
Willows Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
6315
Fax: (
619
)
445-9126
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Virgil Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box
130
Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
765
-
0845
Fax: (
760
)
765-0320
Kumeyaay
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Clint Linton, Director of Cultural
Resources
P.O. Box
507
Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
803
-
5694
cjlinton
73 @aol.com
Kumeyaay
Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson
2005
S. Escondido Blvd.
Escondido, CA,
92025
Phone: (
760
)
737
-
7628
Fax: (
760
)
747-8568
Kumeyaay
Jamul Indian Village
Erica Pinto, Chairperson
P.O. Box
612
Jamul, CA,
91935
Phone: (
619
)
669
-
4785
Fax: (
619
)
669-4817
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of
Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas,
P.O. Box
775
Pine Valley, CA,
91962
Phone: (
619
)
709
-
4207
Kumeyaay
La Jolla Band of Luiseno
Indians
Fred Nelson, Chairperson
22000
Highway
76 Pauma Valley, CA,
92061
Phone: (
760
)
742
-
3771
Luiseno
1 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed North Coast Church R- 9257
Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2019-
000384
01/22/2019 09:18 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
1/22/2019
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
P. O. Box
1120
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
2113
Fax: (
619
)
478-2125
LP
13 [email protected]
Kumeyaay
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
P. O. Box
1120
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
2113
Fax: (
619
)
478-2125
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1302
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
766
-
4930
Fax: (
619
)
766-4957
Kumeyaay
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Mario Morales, Cultural
Resources Representative
PMB
366
35008
Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA,
92059
Phone: (
760
)
622
-
1336
Kumeyaay
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Virgil Oyos, Chairperson
P.O Box
270
Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
782
-
3818
Fax: (
760
)
782-9092
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB
50 ,
35008
Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA,
92059
Phone: (
760
)
891
-
3515
Fax: (
760
)
742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
Temet Aguilar, Chairperson
P.O. Box
369
Pauma Valley, CA,
92061
Phone: (
760
)
742
-
1289
Fax: (
760
)
742-3422
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Mission
Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box
1477
Temecula, CA,
92593
Phone: (
951
)
770
-
6306
Fax: (
951
)
506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1477
Temecula, CA,
92593
Phone: (
951
)
770
-
6000
Fax: (
951
)
695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Jim McPherson, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
1051
Fax: (
760
)
749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
2 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed North Coast Church R- 9257
Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2019-
000384
01/22/2019 09:18 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
1/22/2019
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
1051
Fax: (
760
)
749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
1889
Sunset Drive
Vista, CA,
92081
Phone: (
760
)
724
-
8505
Fax: (
760
)
724-2172
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
San Luis Rey, Tribal Council
1889
Sunset Drive
Vista, CA,
92081
Phone: (
760
)
724
-
8505
Fax: (
760
)
724-2172
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
John Flores, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box
365
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
3200
Fax: (
760
)
749-3876
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Allen Lawson, Chairperson
P.O. Box
365
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
3200
Fax: (
760
)
749-3876
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX
487
San Jacinto, CA,
92581
Phone: (
951
)
663
-
5279
Fax: (
951
)
654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
P. O. Box
487
San Jacinto, CA,
92583
Phone: (
951
)
654
-
2765
Fax: (
951
)
654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA,
92019
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
2613
Fax: (
619
)
445-1927
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Lisa Haws, Cultural Resources
Manager
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA,
92019
Phone: (
619
)
312
-
1935
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Julie Hagen,
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
3810
Fax: (
619
)
445-5337
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
3 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed North Coast Church R- 9257
Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2019-
000384
01/22/2019 09:18 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
1/22/2019
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Welch, Chairperson
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
3810
Fax: (
619
)
445-5337
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
4 of 4
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed North Coast Church R- 9257
Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2019-
000384
01/22/2019 09:18 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
1/22/2019
Cultural Resources Survey
Montiel Road Office Project
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT
Not for Public Review