Appendix D
Cultural Resources Inventory Report
February 15, 2023 13528
Ms. Johanna Crooker
Meritage Homes
Subject: Archaeological Resource Inventory – Negative Findings Report for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California
Dear Ms. Crooker:
This letter documents the negative archaeological resources inventory conducted by Dudek for the Gran Vista Project (Project), located in the City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California (Figure 1, Project Location). The City of San Marcos (City) is the lead agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This report was prepared by Dudek archaeologist Matthew DeCarlo, M.A., who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for archaeology.
Dudek previously completed a cultural resourc es constraints analysis for the Project ( DeCarlo et. al . 2021), the results of which were used to construct this archaeological resources inventory. A South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) records search (June 2021) confirms that no previously recorded cultural resources have been recorded within the Project’s area of potential effect (APE). A list of historic structures and sites from the City of San Marcos’ Development Services Department confirmed that none of these sites are located within the APE. A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search did not indicate the presence of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) or sacred sites within the Project APE. However, one response letter from Native American outreach mentioned a resource within the Project APE but no specifics were included. An intensive pedestrian survey of the Project (April 2022) did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project APE.
The 7.6-acre Project APE consists of a vacant lot bordering existing residential and commercial developments (Figure 2, Project Site). The Project APE has been previously disturbed by leveling and grading activiti es. Due to the previous disturbances and the negative archival search, and survey results, Dudek does not recommend cultural resources monitoring for the pr oposed Project. Ground disturbance is unlikely to impact archaeological resources; however, if archaeological resources are encountered during exposure of subsurface soils, ground - disturbing work should be immediately halted in the area and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to evaluate this resource.
1 Project Description and location
The Project proposes the residential development of an approximately 7.6-acre property resulting in 120 townhomes, recreational areas, and landscaping. The Project APE is located in the City of San Marcos, County of San Diego, and delineated by Las Posas Roa d, Palm Road, and an existing single -family residential subdivision.
The property is mapped within unsectioned land in Township 12 South, Range 3 West on the United States Geological Survey 7.5' San Marcos Quadrangle (Figure 1). The 7.6-acre property comprises the entire APE.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 2 FEBRUARY 2023
2 Regulatory Background
The City of San Marcos (City) is the lead agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study is compliant with cultural resource regulations that apply to the Project APE including provisions for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, CEQA, California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Assembl y Bill (AB) Number 52, Senate Bill 18, and the City’s General Plan.
2.1 The California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.)
In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, politic al, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5020.1 [j]). In 1992, the California legislature established CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s h istorical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” ( PRC Section 5024.1[a]). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it is a significant resource and that it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[c]):
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patte rns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. 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.
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Resources less than 50 years old are not considered for listing in the CRHR, but may be considered if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand the historical importance of the resource (14 CCR Section 4852[d][2]).
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria f or the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. The State Historic Preservation Officer maintains the CRHR.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 3 FEBRUARY 2023
2.2 Native American Historic Cultural Sites (PRC section 5097 et seq.)
State law addresses the following:
▪ The disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and the protection of such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction ▪ The procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project
▪ The establishment of the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains.
In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act states that defacing or destroying Native American historic or cultura l sites that are listed (or may be eligible for listing ) in the CRHR is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail.
2.3 California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological and historic resources:
1. PRC Section 21083.2(g): Defines “unique archaeological resource.”
2. PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a): Define historical resources.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource;” it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource.
3. PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e): Set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.
4. PRC Sections 21083.2(b )–(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4: Provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including options of preservation -in-place mitigation measures; preservation -in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).
Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” ( PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]). If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, if it is included in a local register of historic resources, or is identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1 [q]), it is a “histori cal resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption ( PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 4 FEBRUARY 2023
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruct ion, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]; PRC Section 5020.1 [q]). In turn, the significance of a h istorical resource is materially impaired when a project does the following:
1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusio n in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR
2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its i dentification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, 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
3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA
2.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and dispositi on of those remains. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County coroner has examined the remains ( Section 7050.5b). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5c). The NA HC will notify the Most Likely Descendant. With the permission of the landowner, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 24 hours of notification of the Most Likely Descendant by the NAHC. The Most Likely Descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.
2.5 Assembly Bill 52
California AB 52, which took effect July 1, 2015, establishes a consultation process between California Native American Tribes and lead agencies in order to address tribal concerns regarding project impacts and mitigation to “tribal cultural resources”. PRC Section 21074(a) defines TCRs and states that a project that has the poten tial to cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR is a project that may have an adverse effect on the environment. A TCR is defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either:
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of historical resources
2. Determined by a lead agency to be a TCR
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 5 FEBRUARY 2023
2.6 Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 amended Section 65351 of the Government Code and dictates the following:
During the preparation or amendment of the general plan, the planning agency shall provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any other means the city or county deems appropriate.
2.7 Guidelines for Determining Significance
According to CEQA ( Section 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 on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change:
Substantial adverse change in the significanc e 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.
The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project does the following:
▪ 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 ▪ Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, 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 ▪ 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 on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
▪ 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)
▪ If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply ▪ 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 PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 6 FEBRUARY 2023
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 ▪ If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process
Section 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
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 Native American Heritage Commission as p rovided in Public 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 iden tified by the Native American Heritage Commission. 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); and
2. The requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Under CEQA, an EIR is required to evaluate any impacts on unique archaeological resources ( PRC section 21083.2.) A “unique archaeological resource” is defined as:
[A]n archaeological art ifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scienti fic research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. (PRC section 21083.2[g])
An impact to a non-unique archaeological resource is not considered a significant environmental impact and such non-unique resources need not be further addressed in the EIR ( PRC Section 21083.2 [a]; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]).
As stated above, CEQA contains rules for mitigation of “unique archaeological resources.” For example, “[i]f it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 7 FEBRUARY 2023
undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limit ed to, any of the following:
1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites
2. Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements
3. Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites
4. Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.” ( PRC Section 21083.2[b][1]–[4])
PRC Section 21083.2(d) states that “[e]xcavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. Excavation as mitigation shall not be required for a unique archaeological resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, if this determination is documented in the environmental impact report.” The rules for mitigating impacts to archaeological resources to qualify as “historic resources” are slightly different.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b), “[p]ublic agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any his toric resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site:
1. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites.
Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
2. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; b. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; c. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site[; and] d. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
Thus, although Section 21083.2 of the PRC, in addressing “unique archaeological sites ,” provides for specific mitigation options “in no order of preference,” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b), in addressing “historical resources of an archaeological nature,” provides that “[p]reservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites.”
Under CEQA, “[w]hen data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation,” the lead agency may cause to be prepared and adopt a “data recovery plan,” prior to any excavation being undertaken. The data recovery plan must make “provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historic resource.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][3][C]). The data recovery plan also “must be deposited with the California Historical R esources Regional Information Center.” ( Ibid.) Further, “[i]f an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation.” (Ibid.) TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 8 FEBRUARY 2023
However, “[d]ata recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historic resource, provided that determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3][D]).
2.8 Native American Heritage Values
Federal and state laws mandate that consideration be given to the concerns of contemporary Native Americans with regard to potentially ancestral human remains associated funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony.
Consequently, an important element in assessing the significance of the study site has been to evaluate the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed Project.
The category termed “Traditional Cultural Properties” in discussions of cultural resource management performed under federal auspices is a lso potentially relevant to prehistoric archaeological sites. According to Patricia L.
Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), “Traditional” in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and prac tices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include the following:
1. A location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world
2. A rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents
3. An urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultu ral group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices
4. A location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice
5. A location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity
2.9 City of San Marcos Guidelines
Chapter 4 of the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2012 and updated in 2013) describes the City’s cultural and paleontological resources, regulatory framework, and policies and plans to protect such resources (City of San Marcos 2013). The planning goals and policies are described below.
The City's General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element identifies goals and policies aimed at preserving cultural and historic resources. The City’s goal is to “continue to identify and evaluate cultural, historical, archaeological, paleontological, and architectural resources for protection from demolition and inappropriate actions” in compliance with CEQA guidelines (City of San Marcos 2013).
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 9 FEBRUARY 2023
3 Project Background
3.1 Existing Conditions
The approximately 7.6-acre Project APE consists of a vacant lot bordering existing residential and commercial developments. The Project APE has been previously disturbed as evidenced by graded terrace s. There was an elevation difference of approximately 10 feet between the nor thern and the southern half of the parcel showing complete disturbance of the natural landscape. The Project APE is bound to the east by North Las Posas Road, to the west by a concrete storm channel, and to the south by a drug store parking lot. The Project APE elevations ranging from 560 to 580 feet above mean sea level.
3.2 Prehistoric Context
Evidence for continuous human occupation in the San Diego County region spans the last 12,000 years. Various attempts to parse out variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad time frame have led to the development of several cultural chronolo gies; some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions. Each of these reconstructions describes essentially similar trends in assemblage composition in mo re or less detail. This research employs a common set of generalized terms used to describe chronological trends in assemblage composition from an archaeological perspective: Paleoindian (pre -5500 BC), Archaic (8000 BC. –AD 500), Late Prehistoric (AD 500–1750), and Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1750). Native American aboriginal lifeways did not cease at European contact. “Protohistoric” refers to the chronological trend of continued Native American aboriginal lifeways at the cusp of the recorded historic period in the Americas. The tribal cultural context spans all of the archaeologically based chronologies further described below.
3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (pre-5500 BC)
Evidence for Paleoindian occupation in coastal Southern California is tenuous, especially considering the fact that the oldest dated archaeological assemblages look nothing like the Paleoindian artifacts from the Great Basin.
One of the earliest dated archaeological assemblages in coastal Southern California (excluding the Channel Islands) derives fro m P -37-004669 (CA -SDI-4669), in La Jolla. A human burial from P -37-004669 was radiocarbon dated to 9,590 –9,920 years before present (approximately 95% probability) . The burial is part of a larger site complex that contained more than 29 human burials assoc iated with an assemblage that fits the Archaic profile (i.e., large amounts of groundstone, battered cobbles, and expedient flake tools). In contrast, typical Paleoindian assemblages include large stemmed projectile points, high proportions of formal lithi c tools, bifacial lithic reduction strategies, and relatively small proportions of groundstone tools. Prime examples of this pattern are sites that were studied by Emma Lou Davis (1978) on China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station near Ridgecrest, California. T hese sites contained fluted and unfluted stemmed points and large numbers of formal flake tools (e.g., shaped scrapers, blades). Other typical Paleoindian sites include the Komodo site (MNO -679)—a multicomponent fluted point site, and MNO-680—a single component Great Basin stemmed point site (Basgall et al. 2002). At MNO -679 and MNO -680, groundstone tools were rare while finely made projectile points were common.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 10 FEBRUARY 2023
Turning back to coastal Southern California, the fact that some of the earliest dated assemblag es are dominated by processing tools runs counter to traditional notions of mobile hunter –gatherers traversing the landscape for highly valued prey. Evidence for the latter—that is, typical Paleoindian assemblages—may have been located along the coastal margin at one time, prior to glacial desiccation and a rapid rise in sea level during the early Holocene (pre-7500 BP) that submerged as much as 1.8 km of the San Diego coastline. If this were true, however, it would also be expected that such sites would be located on older landforms near the current coastline. Some sites, such as P-37-000210 (CA-SDI-210) along Agua Hedionda Lagoon, contained stemmed points similar in form to Silver Lake and Lake Mojave projectile points (pre-8000 BP) that are commonly found at sites in California’s high desert (Basgall and Hall 199 3). P-37-000210 yielded one corrected radiocarbon date of 8520 –9520 BP (Warren et al. 2004). However, sites of this nature are extremely rare and cannot be separated from large numbers of milling tools that intermingle with old projectile point forms.
Warren et al. (2004) claimed that a biface manufacturing tradition present at the Harris site complex P -37- 000149 (CA -SDI-149) is representative of typical Paleoindian occupation in the San Diego Count y region that possibly dates between 10,365 and 8200 BC (Warren et al. 2004, p. 26). Termed San Dieguito, assemblages at the Harris site are qualitatively distinct from most others in the San Diego County region because the site has large numbers of finely made bifaces (including projectile points), formal flake tools, a biface reduction trajectory, and relatively small amounts of processing tools (Warren 1964, 1968). Despite the unique assemblage composition, the definition of San Dieguito as a separate cu ltural tradition is hotly debated. Gallegos (1987) suggested that the San Dieguito pattern is simply an inland manifestation of a broader economic pattern.
Gallegos’ interpretation of San Dieguito has been widely accepted in recent years, in part because of the difficulty in distinguishing San Dieguito components from other assemblage constituents. In other words, it is easier to ignore San Dieguito as a distinct socioeconomic pattern than it is to draw it out of mixed assemblages.
The large number of finished bifaces (i.e., projectile points and non-projectile blades), along with large numbers of formal flake tools at the Harris site complex, is very different than nearly all other assemblages throughout the San Diego County region, regardless of age. Warre n et al. (2004) made this point, tabulating basic assemblage constituents for key early Holocene sites. Producing finely made bifaces and formal flake tools implies that relatively large amounts of time were spent for tool manufacture. Such a strategy cont rasts with the expedient flake-based tools and cobble -core reduction strategy that typifies non -San Dieguito Archaic sites. It can be inferred from the uniquely high degree of San Dieguito assemblage formality that the Harris site complex represents a distinct economic strategy from non-San Dieguito assemblages.
If San Dieguito truly represents a distinct socioeconomic strategy from the non -San Dieguito Archaic processing regime, its rarity implies that it was not only short -lived, but that it was not as ec onomically successful as the Archaic strategy. Such a conclusion would fit with other trends in southern California deserts, wherein hunting - related tools are replaced by processing tools during the early Holocene (Basgall and Hall 1993).
3.2.2 Archaic Period (8,000 BC – AD 500)
The more than 2500-year overlap between the presumed age of Paleoindian occupations and the Archaic period highlights the difficulty in defining a cultural chronology in the San Diego County region. If San Dieguito is the only recognized Paleoindian component in the San Diego County region, then the dominance of hunting tools implies that it derives from Great Basin adaptive strategies and is not necessarily a local adaptation. Warren et al. (2004) TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 11 FEBRUARY 2023
admitted as much, citing stron g desert connections with San Dieguito. Thus, the Archaic pattern is the earliest local socioeconomic adaptation in the San Diego County region (Hale 2001, 2009).
The Archaic pattern is relatively easy to define with assemblages that consist primarily of p rocessing tools:
millingstones, handstones, battered cobbles, heavy crude scrapers, incipient flake -based tools, and cobble -core reduction. These assemblages occur in all environments across the San Diego County region, with little variability in tool composition. Low assemblage variability over time and space among Archaic sites has been equated with cultural conservatism (Byrd and Reddy 2002; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2004). Despite enormous amounts of archaeological work at Archaic sites, little change in assemblage composition occurs until the bow and arrow is adopted at around AD 500, as well as ceramics at approximately the same time (Hale 2009). Even then, assemblage formality remains low. After the bow is adopted, small arrow points appear in large quantities and already low amounts of formal flake tools are replaced by increasing amounts of expedient flake tools. Similarly, shaped millingstones and handstones decrease in proportion relative to expedient, unshaped groundstone tools (Hale 2009). Thus, the terminus of the Archaic period is equally as hard to define as its beginning because basic assemblage constituents and patterns of manufacturing investment remain stable, complimented only by the addition of the bow and ceramics.
3.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period (AD 500 - 1769)
The period of time following the Archaic and prior to Ethnohistoric times (AD 1750) is commonly referred to as the Late Prehistoric (Wallace 1955; Warren et al. 2004). However, several other subdivisions continue to be used to describe various shifts in assemblage composition, including the addition of ceramics and cremation practices. In northern San Diego County, the post -AD 1450 period is called the San Luis Rey Complex . Rogers (1929) also subdivided the last 1,000 years into th e Yuman II and III cultures, based on the distribution of ceramics . Despite these regional complexes, each is defined by the addition of arrow points and ceramics, and the widespread use of bedrock mortars. Vagaries in the appearance of the bow and arrow and ceramics make the temporal resolution of the San Luis Rey complex difficult. For this reason, the term Late Prehistoric is well -suited to describe the last 1,500 years of prehistory in the San Diego region.
Temporal trends in socioeconomic adaptations d uring the Late Prehistoric period are poorly understood. This is partly due to the fact that the fundamental Late Prehistoric assemblage is very similar to the Archaic pattern, but includes arrow points and large quantities of fine debitage from producing arrow points, ceramics, and cremations. The appearance of mortars and pestles is difficult to place in time because most mortars are on bedrock surfaces; bowl mortars are actually rare in the San Diego County region. Some argue that the Ethnohistoric intensive acorn economy extends as far back as AD 500 (Bean and Shipek 1978). However, there is no substantial evidence that reliance on acorns, and the accompanying use of mortars and pestles, occurred prior to AD 1400. True (1980) argued that acorn processing and ceramic use in the northern San Diego region did not occur until the San Luis Rey pattern emerged after approximately AD 1450.
3.2.4 Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1769)
Early descriptions of the lifeways of Southern California ethnohistoric groups were provi ded by explorers, missionaries, administrators, and other travelers, who gave particular attention to the coastal populations (Boscana 1846; Fages 1937; Geiger and Meighan 1976; Harrington 1934; Laylander 2000). Subsequent ethnographers in the early twenti eth century were able to give much more objective, detailed, and penetrating TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 12 FEBRUARY 2023
accounts. Most of the ethnographers attempted to distinguish between observations of the customs of surviving Native Americans and orally transmitted or inferred information conce rning the lifeways of native groups prior to European intrusion into the region. The second of these subjects provides a terminal baseline for discussing the cultures of the region’s prehistory. Despite the relatively rich ethnographic record, attempts to distinguish between the archaeological residues that were produced by the linguistically unrelated but culturally similar Luiseño and Ipai/Kumeyaay have been largely unsuccessful (Pigniolo 2004).
The first systematic ethnographic work in California was don e in 1871 and 1872 by Stephen Powers (Heizer 1978); in 1877, Powers collected and printed his ethnographic observations in Tribes of California (Powers 1877). Prior to the work of Powers, there were limited records and accounts that might be broadly consid ered as ethnohistorical data, such as Boscana (1846). At the beginning of the twentieth century, Alfred L. Kroeber and others began four decades of systematic documentation of tribal ethnographies. Kroeber’s (1925) monumental work on the Indians of Califor nia continues to be an authoritative source of information. It is important to note that even though there were many informants for these early ethnographies who were able to provide information from personal experiences about native life before the Europe ans, a significantly large proportion of these informants were born after 1850 (Heizer and Nissen 1973); therefore, the documentation of pre -contact, aboriginal culture was being increasingly supplied by individuals born in California after considerable contact with Europeans. As Robert F. Heizer (1978) stated, this is an important issue to note when examining these ethnographies, since considerable culture change had undoubtedly occurred by 1850 among the Native American survivors of California. Nonetheles s, the enormous value of the ethnographies done under Kroeber’s guidance is obvious. The major sources for this review include Lowell John Bean and Florence C. Shipek (1978), Kroeber (1925), Philip S. Sparkman (1908), and Raymond White (1963).
San Marcos is situated within the ethnohistoric territory of the Native American Luiseño cultural group, according to Kroeber’s study (1925; see also Rivers 1993). The Luiseño language belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic language branch of the Uto -Aztecan language family. Luiseño is a term given to Native Americans under the administration of Mission San Luis Rey, and later applied specifically to the Payomkawichum ethnic nation who were present in the region where the mission was founded. Meaning the “western peop le,” the name Payomkawichum can also be applied to the closely related coastal Luiseño who lived north of the mission.
Luiseño territory was situated in the north half of San Diego County and the western edge of Riverside County.
Their lands encompassed th e southern Santa Margarita Mountains and the Palomar Mountains, and their foothills to the Pacific Ocean. The territory extended eastward into the San Jacinto Valley and the western foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. Their neighbors to the were the Ju aneño (Acjachemen) who spoke a Luiseño dialect, the Cahuilla and Cupeño to the east who spoke other Takic Cupan languages, and the Ipai (Kumeyaay) to the south who spoke a California-Delta Yuman language.
The Luiseño resided in permanent villages and asso ciated seasonal camps. Village population ranged from 50 – 400 with social structure based on lineages and clans. A single lineage was generally represented in smaller villages, while multiple lineages and a dominant clan presided in larger villages. Each cl an/village owned a resource territory and was politically independent, yet maintained ties to others through economic, religious, and social networks in the immediate region. There were contact period villages in the vicinity of this segment, near the towns of Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, but researchers have been unable to place rancheria names from the mission registers with these locations.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 13 FEBRUARY 2023
Like other Indigenous California groups, the primary food staple was the acorn (Bean and Shipek 1978), supplemented by other plant resources, fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and marine and terrestrial mammals. Villages were situated near reliable sources of water, needed for the daily leaching of milled acorn flour. Other plant foods included pine nuts and grass seeds, manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, lemonade berry, wild rose, holly-leaf cherry, prickly pear, and lamb’s quarter. Large and small prey included deer, antelope, rabbit, jackrabbit, wood rat, mice, and ground squirrel, as well as quail, ducks, and other birds. Fish, such as trout, were caught in rivers and creeks.
The first direct European contact with the Luiseño occurred in July 1769 with the Spanish expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá. During the next six years, eight missions and forts were found ed north and south of Luiseño territory. In 1776, Mission San Juan Capistrano was founded less than 10 miles north, and the populations of five northern Luiseño villages had been halved within 15 years. In 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was established within Luiseño territory, and the proselytizing among the Payomkawichum began in earnest.
Several Luiseño leaders signed the statewide 1852 treaty, locally known as the Treaty of Temecula (an interior Luiseño village), but the U.S. Congress never ratified it. By 1875, however, reservations for the Luiseño were established in the Palomar Mountains and nearby valleys, including Pala, Pauma, Rincon, Pechanga, and La Jolla. 4 Methods
4.1 SCIC Records Search
Dudek previously completed a cultural resources constraints analysis for the Project (DeCarlo et. al 2021 ), the results of which are summarized below. The purpose of the records search is to identify any previously recorded cultural resources that may be located within the property. In addition to a rev iew of previously prepared EIRs, permit application packages, site records, and reports, the records search also review ed historical maps of the Project APE and vicinity, ethnographies, the NRHP, CRHR, Built Environment Resources Directory, and the lists o f California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. Dudek received the results of the records search on June 17, 2021 (Confidential Appendix A, SCIC Records Search Results).
Dudek review ed the Built Environment Resources Directory on June 16, 2021. No previously recorded built environment resources are located on the Project APE or along the blocks of Las Posas Road and Mission Road that border the Project APE.
The SCIC records search results identified 40 cultural resources within 1 mile of the Project APE, none of which intersect the current Project APE. One resource, P-37-005584/CA-SDI-5584, was identified immediately adjacent to the Project APE and another resource, P-37-005633/CA-SDI-5633, was located 0.15 miles outside of the Project APE. The resources are discussed below. Table 1 summarizes the cultural resources within 1 mile of the Project APE.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 14 FEBRUARY 2023
Table 1. Cultural Resources Previously Identified within 1 Mile of Project APE Primary No Trinomial Era Description
Within 1 Mile of Project APE
P-37-005581 CA-SDI-005581 Prehistoric Habitation site
P-37-005582 CA-SDI-005582 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005583 CA-SDI-005583 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005584 CA-SDI-005584 Prehistoric Bedrock milling feature and lithic artifacts
P-37-005632 CA-SDI-005632 Prehistoric Bedrock milling features and lithic scatter P-37-005633 CA-SDI-005633 Prehistoric Habitation site
P-37-005641 CA-SDI-005641 Multicomponent Habitation site P-37-005642 CA-SDI-005642 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005643 CA-SDI-005643 Prehistoric Two lithic cores
P-37-005644 CA-SDI-005644 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005645 CA-SDI-005645 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005646 CA-SDI-005646 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005647 CA-SDI-005647 Prehistoric Bedrock milling and lithic scatter P-37-005648 CA-SDI-005648 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-005649 CA-SDI-005649 Prehistoric Bedrock milling feature and lithic artifacts
P-37-008813 CA-SDI-008813 Prehistoric Bedrock milling feature and lithic artifacts
P-37-008814 CA-SDI-008814 Historic Remnants of building P-37-008815 CA-SDI-008815 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-008816 CA-SDI-008816 Prehistoric Lithic and shell scatter P-37-011661 CA-SDI-011661 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-011662 CA-SDI-011662 Prehistoric Rock shelter and two flakes P-37-011663 CA-SDI-011663 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
P-37-011715 CA-SDI-011715 Prehistoric Quarry and bedrock milling features with lithic scatter
P-37-011716 CA-SDI-011716 Historic Remains of historic structure P-37-012592 CA-SDI-012592 Prehistoric,
Historic
Prehistoric bedrock milling and artifact
scatter; historic refuse
P-37-012593 CA-SDI-012593 Prehistoric,
Historic
Prehistoric bedrock milling and artifact
scatter; historic refuse
P-37-012594 CA-SDI-012594 Historic Refuse scatter
P-37-012595 CA-SDI-012595 Prehistoric Bedrock milling
P-37-012596 CA-SDI-012596 Historic Refuse scatter
P-37-014950 — Prehistoric Isolated scraper
P-37-015064 — Prehistoric Isolated handstone
P-37-018190 — Historic Industrial building
P-37-018191 — Historic Commercial building
P-37-024911 CA-SDI-016492 Prehistoric Refuse scatter
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 15 FEBRUARY 2023
Table 1. Cultural Resources Previously Identified within 1 Mile of Project APE Primary No Trinomial Era Description
P-37-025556 CA-SDI-016971 Prehistoric Bedrock milling
P-37-033557 — Historic Highway 395
P-37-036868 — Historic Earthen dam
P-37-036869 — Historic Earthen dam
P-37-039088 CA-SDI-022954 Historic Refuse deposit
0 S. Rancho Santa Fe
Road
— Historic Historic address
P-37-005584/CA -SDI -5584
This site was originally recorded by Randy Franklin in 1977 as a single grinding slick in a boulder outcrop on a small knoll. Franklin (1977 a) stated that there was no midden , but lithic flakes, core fragments, and a hammerstone were present near the adjacent road, and suggested that they may have been intrusive. This resource was located immediately east of the Project APE within the current path of Las Posas Road. This resource was destroyed during the road’s construction in 1986 and its expansion by 1990.
P-37-005 633 /CA-SDI -5633
This site was originally recorded by Randy Franklin in 1977 as a bedrock milling station on a small knoll (Franklin 1977b). The site went through several rounds of archaeological testing and was determined significant under CEQA. In 2002, the eastern h alf of the site underwent data recovery to mitigate developments. The collected deposits include bifaces and projectile points, cores, over 13,000 debitage, groundstone implements, beads, shell, and historic refuse. Human bone was also recovered and repatr iated to Native American representatives.
This resource is located 0.15 miles from the Project APE.
The records search also identified 55 previous studies that have been performed within 1 mile of the Project APE.
Four of these studies have addressed at least a portion of the Project APE, one of which (SD -18210) addressed the entire Project APE. SD-18210, however, was a constraints study and did not include a full pedestrian survey.
The findings of SD -18210 are similar to the findings of this inventory so will not be summarized here. These previous 55 studies were conducted between 1974 and 2020. No survey of the Project APE has been conducted within the past 6 years. A complete list of the previous studies conducted within 1 mile of the Project APE is included as Table 2 in Confidential Appendix A.
4.2 Built Environment Historical Resources
There are no built environment resources on the Project APE . The Project APE is surrounded by numerous residential and commercial buildings, all of which were constructed after 1973. No previously identified historical resources are in the vicinity. The commercial building to the south of the Project APE (currently CVS) was constructed in 2010. The width of streets an d topography surrounding the Project APE creates a geographic and visual separation between the Project APE and all nearby development. There are no built environment historical resources that require avoidance or evaluation prior to construction.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 16 FEBRUARY 2023
On June 17, 2021 , Dudek Architectural Historian Nicole Frank emailed the City of San Marcos’ Development Services Department at [email protected], requesting information on the City of San Marcos’ historic preservation program and a list of designated resources. On June 18, 2021, Ms. Frank left a voicemail with the City of San Marcos’ general voicemail line asking for information about City’s historic preservation program and a list of designated historic properties. On June 21, 2021, Ms. Frank received an emailed response from Art Piñon, Senior Planner at the City of San Marcos. The email contained a list of historic structures and sites in San Marcos. After reviewing the location of these structures and sites, none were found to overlap the Project APE.
4.3 Archival Research
The previous constraints analysis included a review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs of the Project APE and the general vicinity, to help determine the possible development and land use of the Project APE in the past. The historic aerial imagery available from the website HistoricAerials.com by Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC includes historic photographs available since 1953 (NETR 2021). The 1953 aerial photograph shows that the property was undeveloped but still bordered Mi ssion Road to the south. The knoll and rock outcrop on which archaeological resource P-37-005584 was located is vaguely visible on the 1953 aerial photograph. By 1964, a natural drainage that was located west of the Project APE was channelized and demarcates the western boundary of the current Project APE. The Project APE itself was still undisturbed but a residential development was constructed to the northeast. By 1978, the Project APE and the adjacent P -37- 005584 knoll were undisturbed , though a new resi dential development was constructed west of the project boundary. The 1984 aerial photograph shows that the southeastern corner of the Project APE was graded but the rest of the Project APE and the adjacent P -37-005584 knoll was undisturbed. The 1986 aeria l photograph, however, shows the grading of the current North Las Posas Road alignment. This grading disturbed the eastern border of the Project APE and destroyed part of the adjacent P -37-005584 knoll. In 1989, the grading of the eastern Project APE boundary was expanded and substantial earth movement was required to support the current alignment of the six -laned North Las Posas Road. This expansion destroyed the P -37-005584 knoll adjacent to the Project APE. By 1991, the entire Project APE had been graded. By 2009, the entire Project APE was graded again leaving the property with a northern terrace that overlooked the southern 3/4ths of the Project APE. The current commercial building and parking lot that bound the southern portion of the Project APE was a lso constructed in 2009. The historic aerial photographs show that the Project APE has been undeveloped but completely disturbed.
4.4 NAHC and Native American Outreach Letters
Dudek requested a NAHC search of the SLF on April 15, 2022, for the proposed Project APE and a 1 -mile buffer.
The SLF consists of a database of known Native American resources. These resources may not be included in SCIC database. The NAHC replied on May 1 9, 2022 , and reported that the SLF did not identify any known Native American cultural resources within the Project APE or the surrounding 1-mile buffer (Appendix B , Tribal Correspondence). The NAHC additionally provided a list of Native American tribes an d individuals/organizations with traditional geographic associations that might have knowledge of cultural resources in this area.
Outreach letters were mailed on May 27, 2022 , to all Native American group representatives included on the NAHC contact list (Appendix B) . These letters attempt ed to solicit additional information relating to Native American resources that may be impacted by the Project. Native American representatives were requested to TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 17 FEBRUARY 2023
define a general area where known resources intersect the Project APE. To date, Dudek has received responses to these outreach letters from three tribal representatives. On June 17, 2022, S an Pasqual Band of Mission Indians responded to the letter stating that the Project APE is within the boundary of the tribe’s Traditional Use Area. San Pasqual stated that they would like to engage in “formal government to government consultation”. On June 21, 2022, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians stated that the Project APE is within their Ancestral Territory and that they are interested in participating in the Project Area. Pechanga added that the Project APE is within 1.75 miles of two Ancestral Placenames and nine other previously recorded sites within 0.5 miles, one of which is within the Project APE. Unfortunately, no other information about the intersecting resource was included but Pechanga is likely referring to the destroyed Project Area a djacent P-37-005584 knoll. On June 28, 2022 Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians responded to the outreach letter and stated that the Project APE was within the band’s specific Area of Historic Interest. Rincon added that they were concerned that the project may impact Tribal Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Landscapes, or potential Traditional Cultural Properties. Rincon recommended that an archaeological/cultural resources inventory and that a Tribal monitor from the Rincon Band should accompany the sur vey. On July 12, 2022, Dudek archaeologist Mattthew DeCarlo met Cheryl Madrigal, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for Rincon Band, at the Project APE for a site visit. They discussed the previous disturbance of the area and visited the location of former prehistoric bedrock milling site P-37-005584. Ms. Madrigal stated that she would contact the City about her concerns after she had some time to research the Project Area. On September 8, 2022, Rincon sent a letter to the City critiquing an earlier v ersion of this report. Rincon requested an ethno-historic research and further analysis of adjacent sites P -37-005584 and P-37-005633.
In compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 , the City, as lead agency, is responsible for conducting government to government consultation with pertinent tribal entities. Rincon Band responded to City outreach for Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 on February 16 and April 13 requesting consultation on the Project. The City had a consultation meeting with representatives of Rincon Band on August 16, 2022.
4.5 Intensive Pedestrian Survey
Dudek archaeologist Javier Hernandez conducted a survey of the proposed Project APE on April 22, 2022. Native American monitor Logovii Sialoi from Saving Sacred Sites , Inc., a Luiseño owned company, participated in the pedestrian survey. The Project consists of a vacant lot bordering existing residential and commercial developments. The Project APE has been previously disturbed as evidenced by graded terrace s. There was an elevation difference of approximately 10 feet between the northern and the southern half of the parcel showing complete disturbance of the natural landscape . Ground visibility was low throughout the APE due to heavy vegetation with some modern trash and debris scattered throughout the area. Though currently undeveloped, the Project APE is immediately adjacent to residential and commercial development and has been subjected to illicit dumping activities. Pedestrian survey was conducted utilizing formal tr ansects at 15-meter intervals. Deviations from transects also occurred to inspect animal burrows and other locations of exposed sediments and boulders.
No remnants of adjacent resource P-37-005584 or other archaeological resources were identified within th e Project APE.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 18 FEBRUARY 2023
5 Summary and Management Considerations
Dudek’s archaeological resources inventory for the Project did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project APE. The Project APE has been completely graded and levelled, as evidenced by historic aerial photographs and the pedestrian survey.
Due to the negative results of the SCIC records search, NAHC SLF Search, and intensive -level survey, Dudek anticipates that no known cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed Project. These negative results and the previous disturbance of the area suggest that there is a low probability for impacting unknown cultural resources during construction. Dudek does not recommen d cultural resources monitoring or any other cultural resource efforts for the Project; however, in the unlikely event that archaeological materials are identified during earth moving activities, work should be temporary halted in the vicinity of the disco very. A qualified archaeologist should be notified to review the unanticipated find and evaluate the resource for CRHR listing. Should human remains be discovered, work will halt in that area and procedures set forth in the PRC (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) will be followed, beginning with notification to the County Coroner.
If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner will contact the NAHC to designate a Most Likely Descendent, who will provided recommendations for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains.
Should you have any questions relating to this report and its findings please do not hesitate to contact Dudek directly.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Matthew DeCarlo, MA
Archaeologist
Office: 760.479.4831
Email: [email protected]
cc: Vanessa Scheidel, Erin Phillips, Dudek
Att: Figure 1. Project Location Map
Figure 2. Project APE Map
Confidential Appendix A: SCIC Record Search Results
Appendix B: Native American Correspondence
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 19 FEBRUARY 2023
6 References
Basgall, Mark E., and Matthew C. Hall. 1993. Archaeology of the Awl Site, CA-SBR-4562, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Submitted to Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Basgall, Mark E., L. Johnson, and Micah J. Hale. 2002. An evaluation of four archaeological sites in the Lead Mountain Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California.
Submitted to Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Hiezer, pp. 550-563. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Boscana, G. 1846. “Chinigchinich; A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California.” In Life in California, by Alfred Robinson, 227-341. New York: Wiley & Putnam.
Byrd, Brian F., and Seetha N. Reddy. 2002. Late Holocene adaptations along the northern San Diego coastline:
new perspectives on old paradigms. In Catalysts to complexity: late Holocene societies of the California coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson, and Terry L. Jones, pp. 41-62. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
City of San Marcos. 2013. City of San Marcos Development Plan. Electronic document, http://www.san-marcos.net/ departments/development-services/stormwater/development-planning . Accessed July 31, 2017.
Davis, Emma Lou. 1978. The ancient Californians: Rancholabrean hunters of the Mojave Lakes country. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series No. 29, Los Angeles.
DeCarlo, M., A. Lyons, and N. Frank. 2022. Cultural Resources Due Diligence Evaluation for the Meritage Las Posas Property, City of San Marcos, California. Report on file at Dudek.
Fages, P. 1937. A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California (1775). Translated by H.I. Priestly.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Franklin, R. 1977a, CA-SDI-5584: Archaeological Site Survey Record. On file at the SCIC.
Franklin, R. 1977b, CA-SDI-5633: Archaeological Site Survey Record. On file at the SCIC.
Gallegos, Dennis R. (editor). 1987. San Dieguito-La Jolla: chronology and controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper No. 1, San Diego.
Geiger, M., and C. W. Meighan. 1976. As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813-1815. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 20 FEBRUARY 2023
Hale, Micah J. 2001. Technological organization of the Millingstone Pattern in southern California. MA, Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento.
Hale, Micah J. 2009. Santa Barbara and San Diego: contrasting adaptive strategies on the southern California coast. PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Harrington, J.P. 1934. “A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4). Washington, D.C.
Heizer, R. 1978. “Introduction.” In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 1–6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, edited by W.C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Heizer, R. and K.M. Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Laylander, D. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias, 1533-1825. Salinas, California: Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 47.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research ). 2021. Historic Aerials. NETR Online. Search title “San Marcos, California”. Accessed June 15, 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Parker, P. L. and T. F. King. 1998. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for the Evaluation and Documentation of Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register of Historic Places, U.S. National Park Service.
Pigniolo, A.R. 2004. “Points, Patterns, and People: Distribution of the Desert Side-Notched Point in San Diego.” Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 14:27–39.
Powers, S. 1877. Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. III. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley, 1976.
Rivers, B. 1993. “The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historical Background.” In The Cultural Resources of the Pendleton Coast District. Manuscript on file at SAIC, Santa Barbara, California.
Sparkman, P.S. 1908. “The Culture of the Luiseño Indians.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:187–234.
True, D.L. 1980. “The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978.” Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023. Web Soil Survey [web application]. Accessed February 2023. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Warren, Claude N. 1964. Cultural change and continuity on the San Diego Coast. PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 21 FEBRUARY 2023
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural tradition and ecological adaptation on the southern California coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-15.
Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer. 2004. Paleoindian and early Archaic periods. Submitted to Prehistoric and historic archaeology of metropolitan San Diego: an historic properties background study, prepared for Metropolitan Wastewater Department, San Diego, California, by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, California.
White, R. 1963. “Luiseño Social Organization.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:91–194.
Dat
e: 6/14/2021 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure1-ProjectLocation.mxd 78 SO
URCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Marcos Quadrangle
02 ,0001,
000
Feet
St
udy Area
FI
GURE 1
Project Location
Gran Vista Project
Dat
e: 6/14/2021 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure2-ProjectSite.mxd PA
L
MAC ST
GR
ANITE RD
PALM RD
PALOMARCOS AVE
NLASPOSASRD
N P
ACIFIC ST
WMISSIONRD
SO
URCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021
0 15075
Fee
t
Pr
oject Site
FI
GURE 2
Project Site
Gran Vista Project
TO: JOHANNA CROOKER
SUBJECT:ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY – NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORT FOR THE GRAN VISTA PROJECT, CITY
OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
13528 24 FEBRUARY 2023
National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information
Authors: Matthew DeCarlo M.A.
Firm: Dudek
Project Proponent: Meritage Homes
Report Date: February 2023
Report Title: Archaeological Resources Inventory – Negative Findings Report for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California
Type of Study: Phase I Inventory
Resources: None
USGS Quads: San Marcos, California, Unsectioned land in Township 12 South, Range 3 West Acreage: 7.6
Permit Numbers: N/A
Keywords: Pedestrian Survey, Inventory, Negative, City of San Marcos, Gran Vista
Appendix A
(Confidential)
SCIC Record Search Results
Appendix B
Native American Correspondence
SLF&Contactsform: rev: 05/07/14
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95501
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project:
County:
USGS Quadrangle
Name:
Township: Range: Section(s):
Company/Firm/Agency:
Contact Person:
Street Address:
City: Zip:
Phone: Extension:
Fax:
Email:
Project Description:
Project Location Map is attached
Gran VIsta Project - Dudek No. 13528
San Diego
San Marcos
12 South
3 West
Unsectioned
Dudek
Matthew DeCarlo
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA
92024
(760) 815-7067
(760) 632-0164
[email protected]
The proposed project consists of developing a leveled lot into a residential subdivision. ✔
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
May 19, 2022
Matthew DeCarlo
Dudek
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Gran Vista Project, San Diego County
Dear Mr. DeCarlo:
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 negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
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]
Diegueno
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]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 933 - 2200
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 368 - 4382
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Virgil Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 130
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 765 - 0845
Fax: (760) 765-0320
Diegueno
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Clint Linton, Director of Cultural
Resources
P.O. Box 507
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 803 - 5694
[email protected]
Diegueno
Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson
2005 S. Escondido Blvd.
Escondido, CA, 92025
Phone: (760) 737 - 7628
Fax: (760) 747-8568
Diegueno
Jamul Indian Village
Erica Pinto, Chairperson
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA, 91935
Phone: (619) 669 - 4785
Fax: (619) 669-4817
[email protected]
Diegueno
Jamul Indian Village
Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA, 91935
Phone: (619) 669 - 4855
[email protected]
Diegueno
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of
Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas,
P.O. Box 775
Pine Valley, CA, 91962
Phone: (619) 709 - 4207
Kwaaymii
Diegueno
La Jolla Band of Luiseno
Indians
Norma Contreras, Chairperson
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA, 92061
Phone: (760) 742 - 3771
Luiseno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
1 of 3
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 Gran Vista Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2022-
002826
05/19/2022 10:25 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
5/19/2022
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 766 - 4930
Fax: (619) 766-4957
Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 782 - 3818
Fax: (760) 782-9092
[email protected]
Diegueno
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 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 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
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
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
San Luis Rey, Tribal Council
1889 Sunset Drive
Vista, CA, 92081
Phone: (760) 724 - 8505
Fax: (760) 724-2172
[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
2 of 3
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 Gran Vista Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2022-
002826
05/19/2022 10:25 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
5/19/2022
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]
Diegueno
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]
Diegueno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
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
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Kristie Orosco, Kumeyaay
Resource Specialist
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA, 92019
Phone: (619) 445 - 6917
Kumeyaay
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Cody Martinez, Chairperson
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA, 92019
Phone: (619) 445 - 2613
Fax: (619) 445-1927
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
John Christman, Chairperson
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 445 - 3810
Fax: (619) 445-5337
Diegueno
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Ernest Pingleton, Tribal Historic
Officer, Resource Management
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 659 - 2314
[email protected]
Diegueno
3 of 3
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 Gran Vista Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2022-
002826
05/19/2022 10:25 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
5/19/2022
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Temet Aguilar, Chairperson
Pauma & Yuima Reservation
P.O. Box 369
Pauma Valley, CA 92061
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Aguilar,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
78 SO
URCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Marcos Quadrangle
T ownship 12S; Range 3W; Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16 Da
te: 6/14/2021 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Meritage_LasPosas_RecordsSeac h.mxd 02 ,0001,
000
Feet
Stu
dy Area
1-M
ile Buffer
1:24
,000
0 570285 Me
ters
Re
cords Search
Gran Vista Project
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. John Christman, Chairperson
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
1 Viejas Grade Rd.
Alpine, CA 91901
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Christman,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Norma Contreras, Chairperson
La Jolla Band of Mission Indians
22000 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA 92061
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Contreras,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Lisa Cumper, THPO
Jamul Indian Village
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA 91935
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Cumper,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. John Flores, Environmental Coordinator
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
P.O. Box 365
Valley Center, CA 92082
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Flores,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
Ewiiaapaayp Tribe
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA 91901
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Garcia,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Pala Band of Mission Indians
35008 Pala Temecula Rd.
Pala, CA 92059
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Gaughen,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Ralph Goff, Chairperson
Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA 91906
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Goff,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
P.O. Box 365
Valley Center, CA 92082
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Lawson,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources
Ipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
P.O. Box 507
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Linton,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Michael Linton, Chairperson
Mesa Grande Band of Dieguneo Mission Indians
P.O. Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Linton,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Carmen Lucas,
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 775
Pine Valley, CA 91962
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Lucas,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Mark Macarro, Chairperson
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA 92593
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Macarro,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Manager
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA 92593
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Macarro,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Rincon Band of Mission Indians
One Governement Center Lane
Valley Center, CA 92082
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Madrigal,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Cody Martinez, Chairperson
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA 92019
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Martinez,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
1 Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA 92082
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Mazzetti,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Javaughn Miller, Tribal Administrator
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
8 Crestwood Rd.
Boulevard, CA 91905
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Miller,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Ontiveros,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Kristie Orosco, Resource Specialist
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA 92019
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Orosco,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson
Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians
2005 S. Escondido Blvd.
Escondido, CA 92025
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Osuna,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
8 Crestwood Rd.
Boulevard, CA 91905
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Parada,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Virgil Perez, Chairperson
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
P.O. Box 130
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Perez,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Ernest Pingleton, Tribal Historic Officer
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
1 Viejas Grade Rd.
Alpine, CA 91901
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Pingleton,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Robert Pinto, Chairperson
Ewiaapaayp Tribe
4054 Willow Rd.
Alpine, CA 91901
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Pinto,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Erica Pinto, Chairperson
Jamul Indian Village
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA 91935
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Pinto,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Edwin (Thorpe) Romero, Chairperson
Barona Group of the Capitan Grande
1095 Barona Road
Lakeside, CA 92040
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Romero,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Ms. Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA 91905
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Ms. Santos,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Mr. Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear Mr. Vivanco,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
May 23, 2022 13528
Tribal Council ,
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
1889 Sunset Dr.
Vista, CA 92081
Subject: Information Request for the Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, California Dear ,
A private developer has proposed the development of a vacant lot into residential development in the City of San Marcos, California. The project area is located within an existing residential and commercial development at the intersection of by Las Posas Road and Palm Road. The area falls within unsectioned land within Township 12S/ Range 3W of the San Marcos, CA 1:24,000 USGS map (Figure 1).
The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands file search. The results were negative for Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area. I am writing as part of the cultural inventory process in order find out if you, or your tribal community, have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the proposed project. This letter does not constitute formal government to government consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.
If you have any information or concerns pertaining to such information, please contact me.
Respectfully,
_____________________
Matthew DeCarlo, M.A.
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 479-4831
Email: [email protected]
TRIBAL COUNCIL
Stephen W. Cope
Chairman
Justin Quis Quis
Vice Chairman
Jenny Alto
Secretary-Treasurer
Roberta Cameron
Councilman
Melody S. Arviso
Councilman
June 17, 2022
DUDEK
Matthew DeCarlo
Archaeologist
605 Third Street
Encinitas CA, 92024
RE: Gran Vista Project
Dear Mr. DeCarlo,
The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has received your notification of the project referenced above. This letter constitutes our response on behalf of Desiree M. Whitman THPO Officer and San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians.
We have consulted our maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized San Pasqual Indian Reservation. It is, however, within the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Furthermore, we would like to engage in formal government to government consultation so that San Pasqual can have a voice in developing the measures that will be taken to protect these sites and mitigate any adverse impacts.
We would appreciate being given access to any cultural resource reports that have been or will be generated during the environmental review process so we can contribute most effectively to the consultation process.
We appreciate your involvement with your initiative and look forward to working with you on future efforts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760-803-5648 or by e-mail at [email protected]
Respectfully,
Angelina Gutierrez
Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Monitor
Supervisor
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082 (760) 749-1092 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov
Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
Joseph Linton
Council Member
June 28, 2022
Sent via email: [email protected]
DUDEK
Main Office
Matthew DeCarlo
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Gran Vista Project, City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. DeCarlo,
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “ Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. We have received your notification regarding the above referenced project and we thank you for the opportunity to provide information pertaining to cultural resources. The identified location is within the Territory of the Luiseño people, and is also within Rincon Band’s specific Area of Historic Interest (AHI).
After review of the provided documents and our int ernal information, the Rincon Band has specific concerns that that the project may impact tangible Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), Traditional Cultural Landscapes (TCLs), and potential Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). Embedded in these resources and within the AHI are Rincon’s history, culture, and continuing traditional identity.
Based on the information provided above, the Rincon Band recommends conducting an archaeological/cultural resources study, to include an archeological record search and complete intensive survey of the property.
Additionally, we ask that a professional Tribal monitor from the Rincon Band to accompany the archaeologist during the survey.
The Rincon Band further requests to consult directly with the lead agency regarding p roject impacts to cultural resources. While it is not the responsibility of consultants to facilitate State-mandated consultation, the request is included in this letter so the lead agency is aware of the Tribe’s concerns about the project. If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 749 1092 ext. 323 or via electronic mail at [email protected]. We look forward to working together to protect and preserve our cultural assets.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Manager