Cultural and Historical Resource Study for the Bayshore Bikeway Project, San Diego County, California
Submitted to: SANDAG
Prepared for: Mr. Tim Belzman HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941
Prepared by: Arleen Garcia-Herbst M.A., RPA Senior Archaeologist
Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D., RPA Senior Archaeologist
November 2008
2034 Corte Del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011
CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCE STUDY for the BAYSHORE BIKEWAY PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to: SANDAG
Prepared for: Mr. Tim Belzman HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941
Prepared by: ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2034 Corte Del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011
Arleen Garcia-Herbst M.A., RPA Senior Archaeologist
Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D., RPA Senior Archaeologist
November 2008
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE (NADB) INFORMATION...... v MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... vi 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS...... 2 Segment 4...... 2 Segment 5...... 13 Segment 7...... 17 Segment 8A...... 17 PERSONNEL...... 25 2. PROJECT AREA SETTING ...... 27 NATURAL SETTING ...... 27 CULTURAL SETTING ...... 27 Early Man: Human Occupation Prior to 11,500 B.P. (Before Present) ...... 27 Paleoindian Period (11,200 B.P. to 10,600 B.P.) ...... 28 Archaic Period (8500 B.P. to 1500 B.P.)...... 29 Late Prehistoric (1500 B.P. to 200 B.P.) ...... 30 Ethnographic Setting...... 31 HISTORIC PERIOD ...... 32 Spanish Period (1769-1822) ...... 32 Mexican Period (1822-1846) ...... 33 American Period (1846-Present)...... 33 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ...... 37 CA-SDI-13073H...... 37 CA-SDI-16385H...... 45 3. METHODS ...... 47 SURVEY CONDITIONS...... 47 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ...... 48 CURATION OF FIELD NOTES ...... 48 4. REPORT OF FINDINGS ...... 49 SEGMENT 5 ...... 49 Rail Line on Tidelands Avenue ...... 49 SEGMENT 7 AND 8A ...... 50 Coronado Belt Line Railroad (SDI-13073H) ...... 50
Bayshore Bikeway Project i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page 5. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS...... 51 NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ...... 51 CEQA AND THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION .....52 CITY OF SAN DIEGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ...... 53 City of San Diego Historical Resources Register...... 53 City of San Diego CEQA Significance ...... 54 Non-Significant Resource Types...... 54 Chula Vista And National City Historic Resource Registers ...... 55 EVALUATION OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES...... 56 BNSF/ AT&SF Rail Line (CA-SDI-16385H) ...... 56 Coronado Belt Line Railroad (CA-SDI-13073H) ...... 58 6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 61 REFERENCES...... 63 CERTIFICATION ...... 69 APPENDICES...... 71 APPENDIX A. Key Personnel Resumes APPENDIX B - Confidential. Records Search APPENDIX C. Native American Consultation APPENDIX D – Confidential. Historical Resource Location Maps APPENDIX E – Confidential. Updated Historic Resource Records
ii Bayshore Bikeway Project Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1a. Project location on USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map...... 3 Figure 1b. Project location on USGS 7.5' quadrangle map...... 5 Figure 2. APE map Sheet 1...... 7 Figure 3. APE map Sheet 2...... 9 Figure 4. APE map Sheet 3...... 11 Figure 5. APE map Sheet 4...... 15 Figure 6. APE map Sheet 5...... 19 Figure 7. APE map Sheet 6...... 21 Figure 8. APE map Sheet 7...... 23 Figure 9. Overview of the segment of track observed on Tidelands Ave. that is part of CA-SDI-16385H...... 49 Figure 10. Overview of an overgrown segment of the Coronado Belt Line Railroad track (SDI-13073H)...... 50
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Projects Within One-Half Mile of the Project Area ...... 38 Table 2. Cultural Resources Within the Project Area ...... 43 Table 3. Cultural Resources Within One-Half Mile of the APE...... 44 Table 4. Recommendations for Cultural Resources Within the Project Area ...... 57
Bayshore Bikeway Project iii
NADB Information NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE (NADB) INFORMATION
Authors: Arleen Garcia-Herbst, M.A. RPA, Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D., RPA
Consulting Firm: ASM Affiliates 2034 Corte Del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011 (760) 804-5757
Date: November 2008
Title: Cultural and Historical Resource Study for the Bayshore Bikeway Project, San Diego County, California
Submitted to: SANDAG
Submitted by: Mr. Tim Belzman HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941
Contract Number: Not Applicable
USGS Quadrangles: Point Loma, National City and Imperial Beach 7.5-minute
Acres: Unknown: 4.5-mile linear alignment
Keywords: SDI-13073H, Historic Coronado Railroad; CA-SDI-16385H, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Bayshore Bikeway Project v Management Summary MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a cultural and historical resources inventory completed by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) for Segments 4, 5, 7 and 8A of the proposed Bayshore Bikeway project, in the cities of San Diego, National City and Chula Vista, California.
This study consisted of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Site Files records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) and an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project area of potential effects (APE). This records search identified 12 previously recorded cultural resources with assigned trinomials and 95 previously recorded cultural resources assigned primary numbers within one-half mile of the project boundary. Two previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project APE. These two resources were relocated during the field surveys conducted on April 11-15, 2007. No new cultural resources were identified by pedestrian archaeological survey.
Two cultural resources were identified within the project area by records searches: CA-SDI- 16385H, a segment of the BNSF/AT&SF rail line and CA-SDI-13073H, a segment of the Coronado Belt Line. The BNSF/AT&SF rail line (CA-SDI-16385H) was previously determined to be not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as its integrity has been compromised to a significant degree. The current investigation supports the previous determination and recommends that the resource is also not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and local registers.
The Coronado Belt Line (CA-SDI-13073H) has been previously evaluated several times. These previous evaluations determined it to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP and recommended it not eligible for the CRHR. However, it has been determined eligible for and is listed in the City of San Diego Register of Historical Resources (San Diego Register). Based on the history of previous evaluations of this resource, it is recommended that the segment of the Coronado Belt Line (CBL) within the proposed project area is eligible for listing in the CRHR and in local registers. Impacts to this resource should be avoided.
The project as currently planned will not result in impacts to CA-SDI-13073H. The rail line will not be directly impacted by construction of the bikeway and the proposed bikeway will be set back from the railway ROW by at least 10 feet.
Field notes and photographs for this study are archived at ASM Affiliates’ Carlsbad office.
vi Bayshore Bikeway Project 1. Introduction and Project Information 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION
This report presents the results of a cultural and historical resources inventory conducted by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) for the 4.5-mile-long alignment of Segments 4, 5, 7 and 8A of the proposed Bayshore Bikeway project, in the cities of San Diego, National City and Chula Vista, California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) proposes to construct an approximately 4.5-mile-long portion of the planned Bayshore Bikeway along the eastern San Diego Bay front in the cities of San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista (herein referred to as proposed project). The project location extends across the following three USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles: Point Loma, National City and Imperial Beach (Figure 1). The proposed alignment for this portion of the bikeway would extend from 32nd Street in the City of San Diego along Harbor Drive; through the City of National City along Tidelands Avenue, Civic Center Drive, and West 32nd Street; and within the City of Chula Vista from H Street to Stella Street (Figure 2).
The Bayshore Bikeway is a designated 24-mile bikeway loop route around San Diego Bay. The route starts at the Broadway Pier near the intersection of Broadway and Harbor Drive in San Diego and extends through the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and Coronado, where it ends at the Coronado Ferry Terminal at the intersection of 1st and B streets. The San Diego – Coronado Ferry provides the connecting link between the Broadway Pier and the Coronado Ferry Terminal. The Bayshore Bikeway currently consists of a combination of off-street bicycle paths and on-street bicycle lanes and routes, but the entire route is planned as an off-street bicycle path. These three types of bikeway facilities, pursuant to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, are generally defined as follows:
• Class I Bikeway: Class I bikeways, or bike paths, provide for two-way bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from streets or highways. • Class II Bikeway: Class II bikeways, referred to as bike lanes, provide a striped and stenciled lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bikeway: Class III bikeways, or bike routes, provide for shared use with vehicular traffic and are identified by signage only.
Planning for the Bayshore Bikeway began in 1975 with preparation of Bay Route Bikeway Planning Study by Caltrans (1976) that recommended 11 miles of bicycle paths and 14 miles of bike lanes and routes around the San Diego Bay. Since then, a number of key bike path segments have been constructed, including a 9-mile-long bike path within the former railroad
Bayshore Bikeway Project 1 1. Introduction and Project Information corridor along the Silver Strand between Imperial Beach and Coronado, a bike path through Coronado Tidelands Park connecting Glorietta Bay to the Coronado Ferry Landing, and the Gordy Shields bike path/pedestrian bridge over the Sweetwater Channel. The Bayshore Bikeway route was updated in 2006 by the Bayshore Bikeway Plan (SANDAG 2006) to focus on connecting gaps in the route with new off-street bike path segments. The proposed project includes the portion of the bikeway identified as Segments 4 (southern portion), 5, 7, and 8A in the referenced Bayshore Bikeway Plan.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The following section describes existing conditions and proposed project improvements along the proposed alignment within Segment 4 of the Bayshore Bikeway. Additionally, proposed alignment alternatives within these segments are described.
Segment 4 Segment 4 begins at the intersection of 32nd Street and Harbor Drive in San Diego at the main entrance to the Naval Station San Diego and continues south along Harbor Drive to Civic Center Drive in National City. Segment 4 is characterized by a wide roadway (i.e., Harbor Drive) that traverses the Naval Station, railroad and trolley corridors adjacent to the east side of Harbor Drive, and bridge structures over Paleta Creek in the southern portion of the segment (Figures 3, 4, and 5).
The proposed bikeway alignment within Segment 4 would extend along the eastern side of Harbor Drive from 32nd Street to West 8th Street, and then it would cross to the west side of Harbor Drive to Civic Center Drive. The segment of Harbor Drive, between West 32nd Street and West 8th Street currently has a right-of-way (ROW) width of 120 feet and contains one 12- foot-wide and one 13-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, a center raised median, and an 8- foot-wide paved shoulder on each side of the road. A bike lane also occurs on the west side of the road within the shoulder. Harbor Drive, between West 8th Street and Civic Center Drive has a ROW width of 140 feet with one 12-foot-wide and one 14-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, a center raised median, an 8-foot-wide bike lane on the west side of the road, and a 9-foot-wide paved shoulder on the east side of the road.
A Class I bike path would be constructed along the eastern edge of the Harbor Drive ROW. The bike path would be 12 feet wide, except for the first 400 feet extending from West 32nd Street where it would transition to 8 feet. Starting at the transition, the bike path would be separated from the Harbor Drive travel lanes by a 5-foot-wide landscaped buffer and a 5-foot- wide bike lane. Near the southern end of the Naval Base, Harbor Drive crosses over Paleta Creek on a narrow bridge with limited width outside of the vehicle travel lanes. As a result, the proposed project would require widening the east side of the Harbor Drive bridge by approximately 8 feet.
2 Bayshore Bikeway Project 1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 1a. Project location on USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 3
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 1b. Project location on USGS 7.5' quadrangle map.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 5
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 2. APE map Sheet 1.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 7
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 3. APE map Sheet 2.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 9
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 4. APE map Sheet 3.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 11
1. Introduction and Project Information The proposed bike path would cross Harbor Drive at West 8th Street and continue south along the west side of the road. The proposed bike path would be 12 feet wide with the exception of the first 120 feet, which would transition to 10 feet to accommodate an existing bus stop that would be realigned. The bike path would be buffered from the travel lanes by a 6-foot-wide landscaped buffer and an 8-foot-wide bike lane. In addition, a 15-foot-wide landscaped buffer from the Naval Base would be provided west of the bike path. Proposed roadway improvements to this segment of Harbor Drive would include provision of an 8-foot-wide bike lane within the east paved shoulder.
At the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad crossing near the intersection of Harbor Drive and Civic Center Drive, the proposed bike path would either continue along the west side of Harbor Drive, or traverse the BNSF ROW and Naval Base. If the bike path would continue along Harbor Drive, it would taper to 10 feet and follow the free right-turn lane at the Harbor Drive/Civic Center Drive intersection. Under the BNSF ROW and Naval Base alternative alignment, a 12-foot-wide bike path would be constructed along the western edge of the railroad ROW with a portion extending onto the Naval Base. Fencing would be installed along the eastern side of the bike path along this approximately 550-foot-long segment of the bike path.
Provision of the bike path along the frontage of the Naval Base would be subject to compliance with the Navy’s clear zone requirements from the perimeter of Navy property. Any vegetation planted along the bike path and adjacent to the Naval Base would need to be maintained at less than 2 feet in height. Another barrier option for separation could include tubular steel fencing approved by the Navy. Coordination with the Navy would be necessary for implementation of this portion of the bikeway.
Segment 4 of the proposed bike path would cross West 8th Street, as well as driveways providing access to parking areas and naval facilities along Harbor Drive. The bike path at these intersections would be designed with safety features including: a traffic signal head at a height clearly visible to path users at signalized intersections; a stop sign along the path or road requiring path users or motorists to stop at unsignalized intersections; pedestrian push buttons and bicycle detection loops at signalized intersections; caution signage for motorists warning of the path crossing; crosswalks at all crossing locations; and curb ramps where necessary.
Additional proposed improvements would include installation of signage and stenciling of the existing Class II bike lanes along both sides of Harbor Drive, Bayshore Bikeway destination signage, Class I signage (e.g., warning, crossing, directional signage), and lighting.
Segment 5 Segment 5 extends from Civic Center Drive to West 32nd Street in National City via Tidelands Avenue (see Figure 5 and also Figure 6). The proposed bike path would extend west along the north side of Civic Center Drive (either from Harbor Drive or the BNSF ROW/Naval Base, as described above) to Tidelands Avenue, where it would continue southward along the west side of the road to West 32nd Street. At West 32nd Street, it would extend eastward along the south
Bayshore Bikeway Project 13 1. Introduction and Project Information side of West 32nd Street and connect to an existing segment of the Bayshore Bikeway (i.e., Gordy Shields bike path).
Civic Center Drive has an existing ROW width of 80 feet and contains one 26-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, which includes a parking lane, and 14-foot-wide sidewalks on each side of the road. The proposed bike path along Civic Center Drive would be 12 feet wide and would replace the existing sidewalk on the north side of the roadway. As Civic Center Drive turns into Tidelands Avenue, the parking lane would end and a landscape buffer would be provided between the bike path and the travel lane. No other improvements to Civic Center Drive would be required.
Most of Tidelands Avenue has a ROW width of 94 feet that contains one 20-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, truck parking on portions of both sides, and sidewalks on portions of both sides of the road. The segment of Tidelands Avenue that fronts the Naval Base (an approximately 350-foot-long-segment extending from Civic Center Drive) has a ROW width of 60 feet that contains one 25-foot-wide northbound travel lane, one 26-foot-wide southbound travel lane, and a 9-foot-wide sidewalk along the east side of the road.
The proposed Class I bike path along Tidelands Avenue would be 12 feet wide. A 12-foot-wide landscape buffer would be provided along the northern 1,000 feet of the alignment on Tidelands Avenue. Where the landscape buffer would end, a parking lane would begin and a new curb would be constructed along the eastern edge of the parking lane. The bike path would be set back from the curb and parking lane by a 5-foot-wide buffer. To accommodate the proposed bike path, most of the roadway would be re-striped to include one 14-foot-wide travel lane and one 12-foot-wide parking lane in each direction. The segment of Tidelands Avenue that fronts the Naval Base (as described above) would be re-striped to include one 17- foot-wide travel lane in each direction. The existing sidewalk and curb/gutter on the east side of the road would not be affected.
This segment of the bikeway along Tidelands Avenue would cross West 19th Street, West 24th Street, and West 28th Street, as well as several entrance driveways associated with Port properties and other commercial/industrial uses along both sides of the roadway. The bike path at these intersections would be designed with safety features, as discussed above under Segment 4.
West 32nd Street, between Tidelands Avenue and Goesno Place, consists of a 108-foot-wide ROW that contains one travel lane in each direction (varying widths) and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of the road. East of Goesno Place, West 32nd Street includes an 84-foot-wide ROW with one 22-foot-wide travel lane in each direction with a 12-foot-wide center median lane. The proposed bike path would be 12 feet wide and constructed along the south side of West 32nd Street. The bike path would be separated from the travel lanes by a 6- foot-wide sidewalk and 6-foot-wide parkway, or by a 4-foot-wide buffer from the curb.
14 Bayshore Bikeway Project 1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 5. APE map Sheet 4.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 15
1. Introduction and Project Information Segment 7 Segment 7 of the Bayshore Bikeway begins at F Street/Lagoon Drive and connects to J Street in Chula Vista. The proposed project would construct a portion of the planned bikeway within Segment 7, including H Street southward to J Street (Figure 7). At H Street, the bike path would connect to existing bike lane along Bay Boulevard. Signage would be installed at the Bay Boulevard/H Street intersection to direct bicyclists to H Street and the proposed Class I bike path.
The proposed bike path would extend southward from H Street within an existing San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) easement to J Street. Although the transmission towers and overhead lines are planned to be undergrounded by SDG&E, the bike path would avoid the existing towers. The bike path would parallel the Coronado Beltline Railroad line within the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railroad ROW. This segment of the proposed bike path would be 14 feet wide and set back from the railroad ROW by approximately 58 feet. The bike path would cross J Street either at an existing crossing at the J Street/Bay Boulevard intersection, or at a proposed signalized mid-block crossing, which would require safety design features, as discussed above under Segment 4.
Segment 8A Segment 8A begins at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and J Street and extends south to Stella Street. The proposed bike path would extend southward between J Street and just north of the South Bay Power Plant entrance via one of two alternative alignments: within the SDG&E easement or within the SD&AE Railroad ROW and Bay Boulevard. From the South Bay Power Plant entrance, the bike path would continue south to Stella Street within the SD&AE Railroad ROW and Bay Boulevard (Figures 7, 8, and 9).
SDG&E Easement Alignment The portion of the bike path within the SDG&E easement would be 14 feet wide between J Street and the Interstate 5 (I-5) ramps. From the I-5 ramps to the South Bay Power Plant entrance, the width of bike path would increase to 20 feet and would also function as an SDG&E access road. Just south of L Street, 8-foot-high fencing would be constructed along the west side of the bike path to fence off the South Bay Power Plant. Although the existing transmission towers and overhead lines within the SDG&E easement are planned to be undergrounded by SDG&E, the bike path would avoid the existing towers. A new bridge or culvert would be constructed over two existing drainage channels: one south of J Street and one south of L Street. Approximately 100 feet north of the South Bay Power Plant entrance, the proposed bike path would cross the railroad tracks within the SD&AE railroad.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 17
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 6. APE map Sheet 5.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 19
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 7. APE map Sheet 6.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 21
1. Introduction and Project Information
Figure 8. APE map Sheet 7.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 23
1. Introduction and Project Information SD&AE Railroad ROW Alignment Under the SD&AE Railroad ROW alignment, the proposed bike path would be 12 feet wide, except for the segment approximately 150 feet north of L Street to the I-5 ramps, where it would narrow to 10 feet. The bike path would be set back from the railroad tracks by a minimum of 10 feet. From J Street to L Street, the existing berm located along the west side of the railroad tracks would be lowered to provide a more open setting for bicyclists. At the I-5 ramps, the bike path would begin to transition towards Bay Boulevard. Between the transition at the I-5 ramps and Palomar Street, approximately 3 feet of the bike path would remain in the SD&AE Railroad ROW, and 9 feet would be located within the Bay Boulevard ROW. At Palomar Street, the bike path would shift slightly to the east and would be entirely within the Bay Boulevard ROW. The bike path also would be separated from Bay Boulevard by a 5- to 12-foot-wide buffer. Provision of the bike path would not require re-striping or other roadway improvements to Bay Boulevard.
PERSONNEL
Dr. Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, ASM Principal (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles; meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology [36 CFR 61]), served as the project manager.
Arleen Garcia-Herbst, ASM Senior Archaeologist (M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara; meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology [36 CFR 61]), served as the principal investigator.
The qualifications of all personnel are located in Appendix A.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 25
2. Project Area Setting 2. PROJECT AREA SETTING
NATURAL SETTING
The Bayshore Bikeway hugs the San Diego Bay. The 4.5-mile segment through the southern portion of San Diego, National City and Chula Vista extends through mostly urban developed land, some of it created by fill. The San Diego Bay is approximately 125 to 2,500 feet west and the Pacific Ocean is approximately 1.3 to 1.5 miles west of the project area. The project vicinity is primarily developed for commercial and military use, with sparse residential use. The Bayshore Bikeway project area is located primarily on late Holocene artificial fill (Qaf) deposits resulting from human construction, mining, or quarrying activities, as well as young, Holocene and late Pleistocene alluvial flood plain deposits (Qya) and old, late to middle Pleistocene undivided paralic deposits (Qop). The fill deposits include compacted engineered and non-compacted non-engineered fill. The flood plain deposits include mostly poorly consolidated, poorly sorted, permeable flood plain deposits. The paralic deposits include mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the now emergent wave cut abrasion platforms preserved by regional uplift (Strand 1962).
CULTURAL SETTING
Archaeological investigations along the southern California coast have indicated that there was a diverse range of human occupation extending over the past 10,000-12,000 years, until the time of European contact (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Jones 1991, 1992; Moratto 1984. Archaeologists have divided this time period into sequential cultural phases or periods, each distinguished by specific material culture and occupation patterns.
Malcolm Rogers (1929b, 1945) established the basic cultural sequence for San Diego County, and subsequent scholars have generally refined it by subdividing or combining cultures, or renaming the sequence. The most enduring local culture historical classifications are those generated by Rogers (1945) with a later synthetic treatment by Wallace (1955) that integrates San Diego County with other portions of the southern California coast.
This report uses the terms Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric to structure an overview of San Diego County prehistory. The discussion begins with a brief mention of Early Man, a controversial element of regional prehistory.
Early Man: Human Occupation Prior to 11,500 B.P. (Before Present) For better or worse, San Diego has become a focus of the controversy related to the earliest occupation of the New World. The antiquity of human occupation in the New World has been the subject of considerable debate over the last few decades and a number of sites have been
Bayshore Bikeway Project 27 2. Project Area Setting proposed as representing very early occupation of the Americas (Owen 1984; Taylor 1991). The most widely accepted model is that humans first entered North America between 15,000 B.P. and 12,000 B.P.; no North American archaeological sites are reliably dated prior to 15,000 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1969; Jelinek 1992; Johnson et al. 2002; Meltzer 1993). Several notable Early Man sites (pre-15,000 years ago) have been reported in San Diego County (e.g., Buchanan Canyon and Texas Street [for a summary of George Carter’s local work see Gross 2004]), but these locations have problems with context and provenience. Many reported Early Man sites are surface scatters of “ancient” tools, or are cobble tools extracted from geological contexts. Radiocarbon dates that supported Early Man presence in the region have been corrected with improvements in technology, with the result that these dates are now proven to be much more recent (Bada 1987).
Paleoindian Period (11,200 B.P. to 10,600 B.P.) The Paleoindian period in North America begins with Clovis occupation, a widespread phenomena across the continent. Noted for its distinctive tool kit, which is characterized by fluted points, Clovis occupation dates to the end of the Pleistocene, from 11,200 B.P. to 10,600 B.P. (Meltzer 1993). The Paleoindian period in San Diego County, called the San Dieguito culture, is considered to date to the terminal Pleistocene and the early Holocene, from approximately 11,500 B.P. to 8500 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Warren et al. 1993).
Much has been written about Paleoindian assemblages in the southern California region, and a variety of terms proposed. Rogers (1939, 1945) coined the term San Dieguito to refer to early artifact assemblages in San Diego County. Rogers’ (1929b) use of this term developed out of his pioneering survey work during which he identified lithic artifact scatters situated on the San Dieguito Plateau of San Diego County. Key attributes of these sites included patinated scrapers, knives, rare crescentic stones (also called eccentrics), and occasional manos and metates. These sites, situated on terraces and ridge tops, lacked a substantial midden deposit, and were interpreted as evidence of a hunting-focused culture. The range of possible economic adaptations during the Paleoindian period to the paleoenvironment in San Diego County are poorly understood at present, but it is typically assumed that these groups followed lifeways similar to other Paleoindian groups in North America.
This interpretation of the Paleoindian period as the local extension of a post-Clovis big game hunting tradition is based primarily on materials from the Harris Site (Ezell 1983, 1987; Warren 1966, 1967). An unusually high percentage of large bifaces in the Harris assemblage seems indicative of a retooling station, a pattern not found at any other purported San Dieguito sites. Still, there does appear to be some evidence that large biface technology was typical of the earliest occupations of San Diego County, and that this pattern is shared by other complexes in the greater Southwest. What is less clear is how large a role these objects played in the day-to-day subsistence activities of their creators.
During the last 20 years, the relationship between San Dieguito and later La Jolla sites has been the subject of considerable debate (Bull 1983, 1987; Gallegos et al. 1987; Moriarty 1969; Warren 1985, 1987; Warren et al. 1993). The key issues concern whether San Dieguito sites
28 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting are chronologically earlier than La Jolla (Archaic) sites, if early sites really do lack ground stone artifacts, and whether subsequent Archaic sites have a strong bifacial tool characteristic. A major alternative interpretation considers San Dieguito and La Jollan sites as simply functional variants of a single culture, with so-called San Dieguito sites representing specialized quarrying or hunting activities (Bull 1987; Gallegos et al. 1987).
Archaic Period (8500 B.P. to 1500 B.P.) The Archaic period is considered to have extended from 8500 B.P. until 1500 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Warren et al. 1993). This time period is differentiated from the Paleoindian cultural complex based on a focus on marine mollusks, fish, and plant resources. During the Archaic period, there was a generally reduced emphasis on hunting.
Some archaeologists have identified a distinction between shell midden Archaic sites (near the coast) and non-shell midden Archaic sites further inland. Shell middens, flaked cobble tools, basin metates, manos, and discoidal stone artifacts are characteristic of coastal Archaic sites (often termed the La Jolla complex). Inland Archaic adaptations are not well understood. True (1958) studied a series of 25 Archaic sites in inland northern San Diego County and characterized them as the Pauma complex. These sites were set on hills overlooking drainages. They were considered distinct from coastal Archaic sites because they lacked shellfish remains and bone. The economy at these sites was interpreted as oriented toward seed gathering, given the predominance of grinding stones in the tool assemblages. True (1958) initially hypothesized that they may have similarities with San Dieguito (Paleoindian) sites based on the presence of bifaces, crescentics, and projectile points. A significant result of True’s reconsideration of the Pauma complex, based on materials from the Pankey site (CA-SDI-682) and other sites, was the differentiation between Pauma and San Dieguito complex sites (True 1980). He pointed out, elaborating on his earlier study (True 1958), that Pauma sites contain the following attributes: crescents, leaf-shaped points, felsite chipping waste, shallow cultural deposits, and site locations on knolls or hills that are currently not near water sources. No pottery, bedrock milling, or developed midden is present at Pauma complex sites. True further added that the Pauma complex appeared to be affiliated with the coastal La Jollan complex, and had little evidence of San Dieguito cultural components (True 1980).
A focus of his ongoing research over the next several years was evaluating whether the Pauma complex was actually an inland manifestation of the coastal La Jolla complex. While it might seem obvious that ancient use of a major drainage would be continued from the coast to the inland areas, there continues to be little chronological evidence for inland occupation as early as sites occupied on the coast. Previous work on Pauma complex sites had suggested that interior Early Milling/Archaic occupations were much later than coastal Early Milling/Archaic occupations (ca. 2500 B.P. vs. 5000-7000 B.P.).
Differentiating between Archaic period coastal and inland sites is an ongoing research issue. Are the differences cultural, or based on resource exploitation and the environment? Research on Camp Pendleton indicates continuity in Archaic-type occupation of the coastal area from 8000 B.P. into the Late Prehistoric period. These results differ from the classic interpretation
Bayshore Bikeway Project 29 2. Project Area Setting of San Diego’s culture history, but are in line with current thinking that seasonal and environmental adaptations, rather than temporal or cultural differences, result in differences in site constituents. Additional research is needed on this topic.
Late Prehistoric (1500 B.P. to 200 B.P.) The onset of the Late Prehistoric period in San Diego County is generally considered to have occurred approximately 1,500 years ago (Moratto 1984; Rogers 1945; Warren et al. 1993). The timing of this period may vary within the region (potentially earlier in the east and later in the west). In general, the Late Prehistoric period is characterized by the appearance of small, pressure-flaked projectile points indicative of bow and arrow technology, the appearance of ceramics, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremations, and an emphasis on inland plant food collection and processing (especially of acorns) (Meighan 1954; Rogers 1945; Warren 1964, 1968). Late Prehistoric village or base campsites are relatively large, and contain internal activity areas attesting to the complexity of behavior of site occupants (Hector 1984).
Explanations for the origin of the Late Prehistoric period are problematic and subject to differing interpretations (Meighan 1954; Moriarty 1966; Rogers 1945; True 1966). Kroeber (1970:578) speculated that Shoshonean language speakers migrated from the deserts to the southern coast of California at least 1,000-1,500 years ago. Some subsequent investigators have embraced this hypothesis and correlated it with the origins of the Late Prehistoric period (Meighan 1954; Warren 1968).
The Late Prehistoric period in southern San Diego County was first described by Rogers based on over 25 years of investigations in San Diego and Imperial counties. In his key study (Rogers 1945), he described the Yuman cultural sequence, its traits, and the range of its people. Rogers defined the Yuman people as having come from, or possessing cultural traits derived from, the Colorado River area. The Yuman culture developed into what the Spanish called the Diegueño culture during the ethnohistoric period.
A notable feature of Late Prehistoric sites is the presence of pottery, an unusual trait for hunter-gatherers and one that differentiates the Indians of San Diego County from most of the other California Indians. Typically, Tizon Brown Ware ceramics are associated with coastal sites, while Lower Colorado Buff Ware is found in desert sites. Trade between these areas results in a wide diversity of ceramics throughout the county.
In the inland mountain areas, True (1970) conducted detailed surveys and limited test excavations in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. Eleven Late Prehistoric villages were found, several of which are large and complex. Some of these sites may have been seasonal camps for groups from other areas. True (1970:54) considered a range of settlement patterns, but believed that the Cuyamaca complex was defined as a particular type of high-elevation adaptation. This adaptation was noted by Christenson (1990), who identified a difference between the western and eastern Late Prehistoric populations in the southern San Diego culture area: the eastern group moved between the mountains and the desert, while the western group
30 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting moved between inland valleys and the coast. In the Tecate area, archaeologists would anticipate strong contacts with Cuyamaca Mountains groups, as well as desert groups.
Ethnographic Setting The people living in the southern part of San Diego County at the time of Spanish contact were called the Diegueño, after the mission at San Diego. However, as Hedges (1975:80) pointed out, many of the people living in the region were not affiliated specifically with the mission. In general, the term Kumeyaay has come into common usage to identify the Yuman-speaking people living in the central and southern part of the county. Luomala (1978) uses the terms Tipai and Ipai to refer to the southern and northern Kumeyaay, respectively. The dividing line between the Tipai and the Ipai is approximately Point Loma to Cuyamaca Peak and Julian. Anthropologists have used the name Kamia to refer to the Yuman-speaking people living in the Imperial Valley. This report uses the term Kumeyaay to refer to the people who lived in the area.
The Kumeyaay people established a rich cultural heritage that is described in detail in Waterman (1910), Spier (1923), Hohenthal (2001), and others. The people were organized into large groups, each having base camps and an extensive territory exploited for specific resources. Based on ethnohistoric and ethnographic information, a large number of village sites have been identified throughout San Diego County. Many of these villages were located along the coast, near river mouths; the varied environments offered by the ocean and riparian areas attracted large numbers of people to these areas – although a study by Christenson (1992) indicated that maritime resources were not as large a part of the diet as previously believed.
Examples of baskets and pottery from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries indicate a high level of artistic achievement and craftsmanship. Many different types of stone material were used for manufacturing tools, and exotic types were procured from other parts of the region. The remains of structures that were built at village sites can be seen in the archaeological record as stone foundations and circles. The Kumeyaay recognized many traditional cultural areas, and these locations continue to be held as sacred today.
In California, Spanish explorers first encountered coastal villages of Native Americans in 1769 with the establishment of Mission San Diego de Alcalá. The missions “recruited” coastal Native Americans to use as laborers and convert them to Catholicism. This had a dramatic affect on traditional cultural practices. Missionization, along with the introduction of European diseases, greatly reduced the Kumeyaay populations. Most villagers, however, continued to maintain many of their aboriginal customs while adopting the agricultural and animal husbandry practices learned from Spaniards.
By the early 1820s, California came under Mexico’s rule, and in 1834 the missions were secularized. This resulted in political imbalance and a series of Native American uprisings against the Mexican rancheros. Many of the Kumeyaay left the missions and ranchos and returned to their original village settlements (Cuero 1970). When California became a sovereign state in 1849, the coastal Indians were heavily recruited as laborers, and experienced
Bayshore Bikeway Project 31 2. Project Area Setting even harsher treatment. Conflicts between Native Americans and encroaching Anglo Americans finally led to the establishment of reservations for some villages. Other Mission groups were displaced from their homes, moving to nearby towns or ranches. The reservation system interrupted the Kumeyaay social organization and settlement patterns, yet many aspects of the original culture still persist today including certain rituals and religious practices, along with traditional games, songs, and dances.
The diet of the Kumeyaay included both plant and animal foods. There was considerable seasonality in the relative importance of plant vs. animal food, and also the types of plant and animal foods. Nutritionally, the plant foods were high in fat, carbohydrates, and protein, and thus provided a high-energy diet. Some of the plants exploited for food included acorns, annual grass seeds, yucca, manzanita, sage, sunflowers, lemonade berry, chia, and various wild greens and fruits. None of these plants are available throughout the year; instead they were only seasonally available. For example, elderberries are available during July and August, chia seeds are available mainly in June, acorns only in the fall, and many grasses are summer and fall resources. Of course, if these resources were stored, they could be consumed throughout the year.
The Kumeyaay treasured their culture and their way of life. Even after roads and settlements had been built on their tribal lands, the Kumeyaay continued to gather basketry materials and acorns, hold ceremonies, and use traditional ways. They were described as “passionately devoted to the customs of their fathers” (Kroeber 1970:711). HISTORIC PERIOD
The history of San Diego can be divided into three periods: the Spanish, Mexican and American periods. This historical overview is derived from the historical context provided in the City of San Diego Historical Resources Guidelines (City of San Diego 2001:41-48) and ASM Affiliates’ Background Study for Metropolitan San Diego (ASM 2008:241-296). It focuses on the American period, with particular emphasis on the role of the railroads in the development of the urban core of the San Diego Bay Front.
Spanish Period (1769-1822) The Spanish colonization of Alta California began in earnest in 1769, over 200 years after Juan Cabrillo’s landfall on Point Loma in 1542. Spurred by fears of growing Russian and English interests in California, the Spanish government mobilized an expedition of soldiers, settlers and missionaries to secure the northwestern borderlands. The colonization was to be accomplished through the establishment of three institutions: the Presidio, Mission and Pueblo. In 1769 Gaspar de Portóla led a land expedition to San Diego where they met up with expeditions that had arrived by sea. The expedition set up camp near the Kumeyaay village of Cosoy near the San Diego River. They were joined in July of 1769 by Father Junipero Serra who was charged with establishing a system of missions. Shortly afterward the Spanish built a primitive mission and presidio on the hill near the river.
32 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting In August 1774 the missionaries moved the Mission San Diego de Alcalá 6 miles inland on the San Diego River (in modern-day Mission Valley) near the Kumeyaay village of Nipaquay. The new mission was sacked and burned in a Kumeyaay uprising on November 5, 1775. The first adobe chapel was completed the following year. Construction on the present adobe church began in 1776. Eventually, Mission San Diego de Alcalá included a church, bell tower, sacristy, courtyard, residential buildings, workshops, corrals, gardens, and cemetery (Neuerburg 1986). Agricultural fields and orchards adjacent to the river were irrigated by a dam and aqueduct system.
Mission San Diego de Alcalá was the first in a series of 21 missions that were established between San Diego and Sonoma. In San Diego County, Mission San Luis Rey was established in 1798 and three mission outposts were also established at Santa Ysabel, Pala and Las Flores (Englehardt 1920; Pourade 1961; Smythe 1908).
Mexican Period (1822-1846) In 1822, Mexico won its independence from Spain and San Diego became part of the Mexican Republic. The Mexican government fostered trade with foreign ships and a robust trade developed exchanging cattle hides with manufactured goods from Europe and the eastern United States (Robinson 1947:12; Smythe 1908:102). A trading post developed at La Playa on the east side of Point Loma. In response to the growing trade in hides and the ensuing demand for grazing land, the Mexican government began to issue large private land grants known as ranchos. Much of the land issued was carved from former mission lands following the secularization of the missions in 1833. The ranchos were the dominant land division and social institution up to the American Period starting in 1846 (Killea 1966; Pourade 1963; Robinson 1947; Smythe 1908:101-106).
The Mexican period also saw the decline of the presidios and the rise of civilian pueblos. A small pueblo had begun to form below the San Diego Presidio adjacent to the river shortly after 1800 when the Presidio commandant began to grant small lots to soldiers and their families. In 1835, Mexico granted the Pueblo of San Diego (now Old Town) official Pueblo status, by which time it had a population of roughly 600. The Pueblo of San Diego did not prosper as other pueblos did during the Mexican period. The secularization of Mission San Luis Rey and San Diego de Alcalá in 1834 led to increasingly unstable political and economic conditions caused in part by increasing Native American hostilities toward Californios, particularly in outlying ranchos. By 1840 the population of the Pueblo of San Diego had declined to 150 residents. In 1838 San Diego was made a subprefecture of Los Angeles Pueblo and it lost its official status as a pueblo.
American Period (1846-Present) When United States military forces occupied San Diego in July 1846, they met with resistance from a group of Californios under Andres Pico, the brother of Governor Pio Pico. In December 1846, Pico’s Californios engaged U.S. Army forces under General Stephen Kearney
Bayshore Bikeway Project 33 2. Project Area Setting at the Battle of San Pasqual. However, the Californio resistance was defeated in battles near Los Angeles and effectively ended by January 1847 (Pourade 1963).
The Americans raised the United States flag in San Diego in 1846, and assumed formal control with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848. In the quarter of a century following 1848, they transformed the Hispanic community into a thoroughly Anglo-American one.
Urban Development in San Diego The first attempt to establish a city on San Diego Bay was made by William Heath Davis, a San Francisco financier. In 1850 he formed a partnership with Andrew B. Gray, a surveyor with the United States Boundary Commission. They purchased 160 acres of bay front property bounded by present-day Broadway, Market Street, First Street, and Pacific Highway (MacPhail 1979:15; Pourade 1963:161). Davis and Gray persuaded the army to establish a barracks and supply depot within their proposed development, thereby providing a seed for the new metropolis.
Davis, Gray, and their associates deeded the block bounded by present-day Colombia, India, F, and G streets as a public plaza which became the center of town. Davis purchased several prefabricated houses from Maine that became houses, hotels, and stores. Circumstances, however, doomed the enterprise to failure. Southern California was still relatively unpopulated and unknown. In addition, a fire in San Francisco cost Davis $170,000 and he could not continue to invest in San Diego. By 1852 the fledgling metropolis had collapsed (MacPhail 1979:16). It was not until almost 20 years later when southern California’s first true boom resulted in the establishment of the City of San Diego.
In 1860, San Diego was much the same as it had been 10 years earlier, consisting of a small village at present-day Old Town. The non-Indian inhabitants of the town and neighboring farms included 459 people (Lowell 1985:246). Southern California’s urban development in the late 1860s and early 1870s was brought about by the establishment of a farming population and the extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad into the southern part of the state, which stimulated an interest in the region (Dumke 1944:5). This first great land boom and the boom of the 1880s had three distinct foci: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The greatest growth occurred in Los Angeles (Dumke 1942, 1944).
San Diego’s first boom was due to the energy of Alonzo E. Horton, a San Francisco merchant and former land speculator who came to California to seek his fortune in the gold rush. He established a mercantile business in San Francisco (MacPhail 1979:22) and in 1867, purchased a tract of approximately 1,000 acres on San Diego Bay surrounding Davis’ earlier subdivision. Horton’s addition included present-day downtown San Diego and Hillcrest. He had the parcel surveyed and laid out a park, streets, blocks, and lots on the scrub-covered hills and plains, and initially gave lots free to anyone who would build a permanent structure. This method was commonly used throughout the west by speculators attempting to establish urban developments (Antheron 1970:313). In 1869, people began pouring into San Diego to buy lots from Horton and by March 24, 124 dwellings had been erected. By 1870, San Diego was a community of
34 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting 2,300 inhabitants. On April 3, 1871, the county courts moved from Old San Diego to Horton’s Addition signifying that San Diego was no longer to be identified as a small pueblo of adobe houses but as a city on the bay (MacPhail 1979:41).
A parallel development occurred at the same time approximately 5 miles south near the southern end of the bay. In 1868, the Kimball brothers of San Francisco purchased the 2,600- acre former Mexican government tract Rancho de la Nacion for $30,000 and founded National City (Lowell 1985). Over the next two decades Horton and Kimball, along with other San Diego County speculators, worked together for their common interest in promoting the San Diego region.
A primary goal of both Horton and Kimball was to establish a railroad connection to San Diego Bay. Since the 1840s the success or failure of major metropolitan centers had been decided by railroad routes; there was an overwhelming correlation between railroad construction, population growth, and commercial activity (Fogel 1970:239; Jenks 1970). Commercial development also polarized around railroad line terminals and commercial traffic intersections (Jenks 1970:237). Horton and Kimball saw San Diego Harbor as a potential intersection between rail traffic and shipping.
In 1871, Horton, Kimball, and other San Diego speculators met with railroad entrepreneur Tom Scott, president of the Texas and Pacific Railroad. The Texas and Pacific intended to build a southern transcontinental railroad along the 32nd parallel to southern California. The Horton-Kimball coalition convinced him to make San Diego its western terminus (Lowell 1985:247). Although chartered by Congress in 1871 to build from Marshall, Texas to San Diego, the financial panic and consequent depression of 1873 destroyed the project. Still determined, Kimball negotiated with various railroads until the Santa Fe agreed in 1879 to make National City the western terminus of its vast network (Dumke 1944:136; Lowell 1985:249; Pourade 1964).
The commitment of the Santa Fe and completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s transcontinental line, which included a spur to Los Angeles, laid the foundation for southern California’s second large growth spurt and economic boom. Migration to California increased and the winter influx of tourists became a regular occurrence (Dumke 1944:9). This brought an economic upturn that accelerated by the middle of the decade. The boom was first felt in San Diego in 1885 when eastern land speculators, anticipating completion of the Santa Fe line to National City, bought up county land (Pourade 1965). In November 1885 the new line opened, and in 1886, the population of the city jumped from 7,500 to 12,000. This growth resulted in a surge of construction, and 1886 saw the completion of 93 buildings. During 1887, the number of buildings erected rose to 1,760 (Van Wormer 1983:23). The San Diego City Bay front area lay at a critical hub in this transportation network where goods could be transferred between marine and rail traffic corridors. It became the entrepôt for receiving, manufacture, and sale of critical building materials that fueled the boom of the 1880s.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 35 2. Project Area Setting Land speculation provided the real stimulus to the spring 1887 economic boom. Speculators formed land companies and subdivided town sites including Escondido, Coronado, Ocean Beach, El Cajon, Lakeside, and Ramona (Pourade 1964), which became thriving suburbs of San Diego or communities in their own right. The county’s population of 16,000 was four times greater than it had been in 1880. In addition, a transportation infrastructure had been created that allowed for continued economic development (Pourade 1965; Starr 1986). But suddenly in the late spring of 1888, the bottom fell out of the real estate market.
During the boom of the 1880s, the Santa Fe coastal route between San Diego and Los Angeles and various trunk lines throughout eastern and southern portions of the county provided a railroad network that served an area from Oceanside and Escondido to the border and extended as far east as Lakeside (Hanft 1984:9-45). Part of this network was the independent short rail line known as the Coronado Belt Line which was constructed in 1888 to transport materials and passengers to Coronado when San Diego’s landmark hotel, the Hotel del Coronado was being built. It extended from the wharf at 5th and L streets in San Diego south around the bay and over to the wharf on Coronado. This network of rail lines, together with the extension of street car lines and the introduction of the automobile, aided to the successful development of outlying communities and suburbs including Hillcrest, Mission Hills, Golden Hills, University and Normal Heights, Sherman Heights, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, and Coronado during the first two decades of the twentieth century.
The rail connection between Los Angeles and National City did not satisfy city promoters’ desire to make San Diego a world-class center. The only way to compete with Los Angeles was to have a separate and direct transcontinental railroad link. In 1905, the Southern Pacific Railroad approached San Francisco sugar baron, John D. Spreckels, to lead an effort to building a railroad line across the Peninsular Range to Yuma. Spreckels moved to San Diego the year following the San Francisco earthquake, after which time he became one of San Diego’s leading economic developers and downtown promoters. Although not constructed until 1919, anticipation of the proposed San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad stimulated considerable commercial activity in city.
More direct stimulation came with the construction of three new piers at the foot of 6th, 7th, and 9th avenues. Railroad spurs extended out to the piers, providing easier unloading of materials from ships directly to local businesses or for transport by rail out of the city. These improvements and the economic climate of the first three decades of the twentieth century transformed the San Diego Bayfront area from a mixed commercial and residential use to an almost exclusively commercial and industrial zone of warehouses and factories by World War II.
The 1920s saw another land boom (Robinson 1942) that brought added development throughout the city and county including the Point Loma, Pacific Beach, and Mission Beach areas. Development stalled during the depression years of the 1930s, but World War II ushered in a period of growth based on expanding defense industries.
36 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
A records search for the study area was conducted at the SCIC on March 28, 2008 (Appendix B). This search included the project APE and a one-half mile radius buffer around it. Site records on file at the SCIC indicate 70 previous archaeological projects have been conducted within a one-half mile radius of the proposed project (Table 1).
The results indicated two cultural resources are located within the project area (Table 2), and an additional 10 were located within the one-half mile radius buffer around the project area (Table 3). Below is a brief discussion of the two cultural resources within the project area.
CA-SDI-13073H SDI-13073H is a segment of the 20-mile-long historic Coronado Belt Line Railroad (CBL) (also known at various time as the Coronado Railroad, San Diego Southern, San Diego & Southeastern, San Diego and Arizona – Southern Pacific Lines, and Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe – San Diego and Arizona Eastern). The track was constructed in the late 1880s and includes the railroad grade, switches, track ties, and bridges.
The Coronado Belt Line was an independent short line railroad constructed in 1888 to transport materials and passengers to Coronado when the Hotel del Coronado was being built and during the early tourist days. It extended from the wharf at 5th and L Street in San Diego south around the bay and over to the wharf on Coronado. The line was later used primarily to transport freight and commodities for the Hercules Power Plant in Chula Vista, North Island Naval Air Station, Coronado and Rohr Aircraft Company in Chula Vista. It was also used to haul salt from the Western Salt Company Salt Works. In 1908 the CBL was merged with its competitor, the National City and Otay Railway, and in 1917 it became part of the San Diego and Arizona Railway Company. Flooding in 1916 destroyed much of the rail line and only portions of the original line were rebuilt. In the 1930s it became a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad and was known as the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway Company.
In 1993, Don Laylander of Caltrans District 11 recorded the railroad and noted that the only disturbances included probable periodic repair and replacement of original features. In 1994 Gregory King of Caltrans completed an evaluation of the CBL to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Section 106 and concluded that it was not eligible. The State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) concurred with that finding.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 37 2. Project Area Setting Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Projects Within One-Half Mile of the Project Area
Report Author Date Report Title/Submitted to Project Type An Archaeological Survey of the Sweetwater River Flood Bull, Charles S., and Archaeological 1973 Control Channel. San Diego State University. Submitted to Paul H. Ezell Identification Study Environmental Feasibility Studies. (NADB# 1120274) Environmental Setting/Constraint Analysis for the Chula Vista Archaeological Carrico, Richard 1976 Bayfront Redevelopment Project. Westec Services, Inc. Identification Study Submitted to Wilsey and Ham. (NADB# 1120330) An Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed San Diego Archaeological Corum, Joyce M. 1978 Bay Route Bikeway (Harbor Drive to Coronado) 112-12- Identification Study 185301. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. (NADB# 1120497) An Archaeological Impact Statement Concerning Route 15 between Interstate 5 and Interstate 805 Projects: 11-SD-15 Rte. Archaeological Cupples, Sue Ann 1973 5 to Rte.805 11201-093031; 093041; 048131. Sue Ann Identification Study Cupples. Submitted to Caltrans. (NADB# 1120540) Archaeological Test and Data Recovery Program at Telegraph Canyon, Chula Vista California. Westec Services, Inc. Archaeological Eckhardt, William T. 1978 Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (NADB# Identification Study 1120798) Archaeological/Historical Study of the Sander Project. San Archaeological Fink, Gary R. 1980 Diego County Department of Transportation. Submitted to Evaluation Study Unknown. (NADB# 1120942) A Cultural Impact Survey of Telegraph Canyon Creek San Diego County, California. San Diego State University. Archaeological Gross, Tim 1975 Submitted to Department of the Army, L.A. District, Corps of Identification Study Engineers. (NADB# 1120983) An Archaeological/Historical Investigation of Kimball Park, Archaeological Johnson, Melissa J. 1978 City of National City. San Diego State University. Submitted to Identification Study Assistant to the City Manager. (NADB# 1121257) A Cultural Survey of Portions of the Las Chollas, South Las Chollas, Los Coches Forester, and Loma Alta Stream Basins in Archaeological Pettus, Roy E. 1979 San Diego County, California. San Diego State University Identification Study Foundation. Submitted to Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (NADB# 1121269) Addendum to Phase I Extended Archaeological Survey for Pettus, Roy E., Larry Proposed San Diego Bay Route Bikeway Projects in San Diego Archaeological Data L. Leach, and Joyce 1979 County SDi-5512 (Dot-11-Bkwy-1) & SDi-5513 (Dot-11-Bkwy- Recovery Study M. Corum 2). San Diego State University Foundation. Submitted to Caltrans. (NADB# 1121272) Results of an Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the Local Coastal Program Resubmittal #8 Archaeological Smith, Brian F. 1990 City of Chula Vista. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Identification Study Submitted to Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. (NADB# 1121955) Environmental Impact Report Environmental Assessment San Environmental Diego Energy Recovery Project. Environmental Science Cultural Resources Science Associates, 1981 Associates, Inc. Submitted to City of San Diego. Management Plan Inc. (NADB# 1122089) Historic Architectural and Archaeological Survey, U.S. Naval Archaeological Clevenger, Joyce, and 1991 Station (NAVSTA). ERCE. Submitted to U.S. Navy Southwest Identification Study Susan Carrico Division. (NADB# 1122444) Other
38 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting
Report Author Date Report Title/Submitted to Project Type Archaeological Overview An Archaeological Survey for the Bay Route Bikeway, Chula and Assessment Laylander, Don 1993 Vista and National City, California. Don Laylander Caltrans Archaeological District 11. Submitted to Chris White. (NADB# 1122714) Evaluation Study Archaeological Resources Investigation for Military Archaeological Overview Hector, Susan, Marty Construction Project P-254 (SDI-12093). Broken Fragments. and Assessment 1994 Rosen, and Sue Wade Submitted to Lowell Martin, Southwest Division. (NADB# Archaeological 1122919) Evaluation Study Extended Phase I Investigation at Site CA-SDI-5512/H in Chula Crafts, Karen 1994 Vista, California. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. Other (NADB# 1123746) Alter, Ruth, Timothy Cultural Resources Survey of P-333, Child Care Center, Naval Archaeological Overview Gross, and Mary 1994 Station, San Diego, California. Department of the Navy. and Assessment Robbins-Wade Submitted to Tetra-Tech. (NADB# 1127363) Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the San Diego Fixed Carrico, Richard, and Guideway Project, Centre City to San Ysidro. Westec Services, Archaeological 1978 Lesley C. Eckhardt Inc. Submitted to San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Identification Study Board. (NADB# 1120304) An Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed San Diego Archaeological Corum, Joyce M. 1978 Bay Route Bikeway (Harbor Drive to Coronado) 112-12- Identification Study 185301. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. (NADB# 1120497) Cultural Survey Reports for: 11-SD-805, 11-SD-15. San Diego Germeshausen, Archaeological 1973 State University. Submitted to E. Calman, Division of Edward, Jr. Identification Study Highways. (NADB# 1120820) Gallegos, Dennis, Cultural Resource Survey for the MTDB Bayside LRT Archaeological Dale Cheever, and 1986 Extension. Westec Services, Inc. Submitted to Metropolitan Identification Study Richard Carrico Transit Development Board. (NADB# 1121022) The Results of an Archaeological Survey and the Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the South Chollas Valley Trunk Sewer Archaeological Smith, Brian F. 1989 Project Dep. No. 88-0710. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Identification Study Submitted to A. D. Hinshaw Associates. (NADB# 1121573) The Results of an Archaeological Survey and the Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the South Chollas Valley Sewer Archaeological Smith, Brian F. 1989 Interceptor Line EQD No. 88-0710. Brian F. Smith and Identification Study Associates. Submitted to A. D. Hinshaw Associates. (NADB# 1121772) Archaeological Resource Study: Morro Bay to Mexican Border. Cultural Resources Pierson, Schiller, and 1987 Pierson, Schiller and Slater. Submitted to U.S. Dept. of Interior Management Plan Slater Minerals Management Service. (NADB# 1122200) Other Archaeological Overview Cultural Resources Survey for the Sewer Group 623 Project, and Assessment Three Pipeline Segments in the Southcrest District, City of San Case, Robert P., and Archaeological 1998 Diego, California. Mooney and Associates. Submitted to City John Deitler Identification Study of San Diego Water and Water Waste Facility. (NADB# 1123384) Archaeological Evaluation Study Cultural Resources Monitoring for the Sewer and Water Replacement Group 610 Project, Golden Hills, San Diego, Archaeological Overview Alter, Ruth C. 1998 California. Water Utilities Department. Submitted to Water and Assessment Utilities Department. (NADB# 1123498)
Bayshore Bikeway Project 39 2. Project Area Setting
Report Author Date Report Title/Submitted to Project Type Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for Sewer Group Job 622, Four Sewer Pipeline Segments in the Shelltown District, Carrico, Richard, and Archaeological Overview 1998 San Diego, California. City of San Diego, Metropolitan John Dietler and Assessment Wastewater Department. Submitted to City of San Diego, Metropolitan Wastewater Department. (NADB# 1123530) Cultural Resources Investigation for the Nextlink Fiber Optic Jones & Stokes 2000 Project, San Diego County, California. Jones & Stokes. Other Submitted to Nextlink. (NADB# 1123863) Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Disposal near the Mouth of the Sweetwater River in Connection with Sweetwater Flood Lauter, Gloria 1984 Environmental Research Control Project. Gloria Lauter. Submitted to Bill Porter. (NADB# 1124272) Archaeological Survey, Monitoring, and Testing Report for the ATS&F Railway Company 32nd Street Right-of-Way and Crosby Archaeological Carrico, Richard L. 1995 Street TOFC Yard CA-SDI-12093 & CA-SDI-5391, San Diego Evaluation Study County, California. Ogden. Submitted to Gannett Fleming. (NADB# 1124354) Archaeological Historic Property Survey for the South Bay Bike Route, Chula Identification Study Crafts, Karen 1994 Vista & National City, California 11-SD-5 P.M. 8-6/R10-0. Archaeological Karen Crafts. Submitted to Caltrans. (NADB# 1124743) Evaluation Study Historic Property Survey Report and Finding of Effect – California SouthernTtranscontinental Terminus Depot, National Dominici, Debra 1994 HSR-Architectural Data City, California. Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, Inc. Submitted to City of National City. (NADB# 1124772) Roy W. Way House 3462 Olive Street San Diego, CA. Beth Montes, Beth 2001 Historical Study Montes. Submitted to City of San Diego. (NADB# 1125001) Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Western Salt Segment of the Bayshore Bikeway Project, City of San Diego, Pigniolo, Andrew 2000 Other California. Tierra Environmental Services. Submitted to BRG Consulting. (NADB# 1125059) Historic Property Surveys Report for the Palomar Street Improvement Project, San Diego County, Chula Vista, Dolan, Christy 1999 HSR-Architectural Data California. Christy Dolan. Submitted to City of Chula Vista. (NADB# 1125134) Archaeological Monitoring of Excavation during Construction of Sewer Replacement Group 628, Dep. No. 91-0093, located in Becker, Kenneth M., Archaeological Overview 1997 the City of San Diego, San Diego County, California. RMW and Joan C. Brown and Assessment Paleo Assoc., Inc. Submitted to City of San Diego Engineering and Capital Projects Dept. (NADB# 1125309) Cultural Resources Inventory and Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-11959 for the Encanto Trunk Sewer Project, San Cultural Resources Robbins-Wade, Mary 1991 Diego, California. Affinis. Submitted to Butler/Roach Group. Management Plan (NADB# 1125506) Historic Properties Inventory for Secondary Treatment Clean Water Program for Greater San Diego: Confidential Wade, Sue 1990 Other Appendices. RECON. Submitted to City of San Diego. (NADB# 1125507) Cultural Resource Survey: Pump 77 Station Forcemain Archaeological Kyle, Carolyn 2000 Inspection. Kyle Consulting. Submitted to The Tire Dudes. Identification Study (NADB# 1125580) Cultural Resources Appendix San Diego Milcon Project P-283. Cultural Resources Sturm, Bradley 1985 Bradley Sturm. Submitted to City of San Diego. Management Plan (NADB# 1125681)
40 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting
Report Author Date Report Title/Submitted to Project Type Cultural Resources Study of P-333, Child Care Center, Naval Archaeological Overview Alter, Ruth C. 1994 Station, San Diego, California. Dept. of the Navy. Submitted to and Assessment Tetra Tech, Inc. (NADB# 1126160) Test Excavation Report: W-194 Adjacent to the 32nd Street Bridge over Chollas Creek, City of San Diego. Archaeological Archaeological Data Van Horn, David M. 1982 Assoc. Submitted to C&M Engineering Assoc. (NADB# Recovery Study 1126186) City of Chula Vista Bay Boulevard Redevelopment Project Final Westec 1979 EIR. Westec Services, Inc. Submitted to Chula Vista Other Redevelopment Agency. (NADB# 1127282) Historic Property Survey Report, Bayshore Bikeway Project, Pigniolo, Andrew, 2001 city of San Diego, California. Andrew Pigniolo. Submitted to Other and Stephanie Murray Unknown. (NADB# 1127427) Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. Duke, Curt 2002 SD 805-01 San Diego County, California. LSA Assoc. Other Submitted to Cingular Wireless. (NADB# 1127538) AT&T Wireless Services No. 10087-01. LSA Associates, Inc. Archaeological Duke, Curt 2002 Submitted to Geo Trans, Inc. (NADB# 1127806) Identification Study AT&T Wireless Services Facility No. 10024. LSA Associates, Archaeological Duke, Curt 2002 Inc. Submitted to Geotrans, Inc. (NADB# 1127815) Evaluation Study Cultural Resource Assessment AT&T Wireless Services Facility Archaeological Pletka, Nicole 2002 No. 10087C, San Diego County, California. LSA. Submitted to Evaluation Study AT&T Wireless. (NADB# 1128036) Historic Property Survey Report Bayshore Bikeway Project, Pigniolo, Andrew R., City of San Diego, California. Tierra Environmental. Submitted Cultural Resources 2001 and Stephanie Murray to Federal Highway Administration California Division. Management Plan (NADB# 1128248) Historic Resources Evaluation Report for City of San Diego Engineering and Capital Projects Department Transportation Burke Lia, Marie 2003 Drainage and Design. Marie Burke Lia, Tierra Environmental Other Services. Submitted to City of San Diego Engineering and Capital Projects Dept. (NADB#1128838) San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Coronado Branch Line Right-of-Way: California Register Nomination. Save Our Bevil, Alexander D. 2001 Other Heritage Organization. Submitted to Save Our Heritage Organization. (NADB# 1128964) Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for Sewer Group Job Cultural Resources McGinnis, Patrick, 2005 744, City of San Diego, California. Tierra Environmental Management Plan and Michael G. Baksh Services. Submitted to City of San Diego. (NADB# 1129592) Other Archaeological Overview A Cultural Resources Survey for the Palomar/Industrial Parcel and Assessment Smith, Brian F., and 2005 Project, Chula Vista, California. Brian F. Smith & Associates. Archaeological Seth A. Rosenberg Submitted to The Olsen Company. (NADB# 1129719) Evaluation Study Other Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate SD857-04 (Toys R Us) Taniguchi, Christeen, Archaeological 2004 1008 Industrial Boulevard, Chula Vista, San Diego County, and Wayne Bonner Evaluation Study California. Michael Brandman Associates. Submitted to Environmental Assessment Specialists Inc. (NADB# 1130051)
Bayshore Bikeway Project 41 2. Project Area Setting
Report Author Date Report Title/Submitted to Project Type Archaeological Overview Extended Phase I Investigation at Site CA-SDI-5512/H in Chula and Assessment Crafts, Karen 1994 Vista, California; 11-SD-5, P.M. 8.6/R10.0, 11290-047970. Archaeological Karen Crafts, Caltrans. (NADB# 1130096) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview Bowden-Renna, Archaeological Survey and Historical Resource Evaluation for and Assessment Cheryl, Carrie the ADA Street Development, City of Chula Vista, San Diego 2006 Archaeological Gregory, and Jennifer County, California. EDAW, Inc. Submitted to Alfa Group. Evaluation Study Hirsh (NADB# 1130452) Other Archaeological Overview and Assessment Multiple Reports for the Barrio Logan District. Submitted to Various Various Archaeological Unknown. (NADB# 1130711) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview Nomination Form for the Brick Row/Kimball Block. National and Assessment Hoffman, Cheri Lynn 1973 City Historical Committee. Submitted to U.S. Dept. of Interior- Archaeological National Parks Service. (NADB# 1130792) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview Report on the Station and General Office, California Southern and Assessment Coons, Bruce, and Railroad. Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA Inc. Submitted to 1995 Archaeological Dolores Mellon U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Parks Service. (NADB# Evaluation Study 1130843) Other Archaeological Overview Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bayshore and Assessment Lathers, Erich, and Bikeway Western Salt Segment SCH. No. 2002121129. BRG 2007 Archaeological Tim Gnibus Consulting Inc. Submitted to City of S.D. Development Evaluation Study Services Dept. (NADB# 1130933) Other Archaeological Overview National City Depot Transcontinental Railroad, 900 (922) West and Assessment Various Various 23rd Street, National City, California 91950. Submitted to Archaeological Unknown. (NADB# 1131029) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview Environmental Impact Report, Bayshore Bikeway Western Salt and Assessment City of San Diego 2007 Segment, City of San Diego – Development. Submitted to Archaeological Unknown. (NADB# 1131115) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview Review of Findings on California Register Eligibility: The and Assessment JRP Historical 2001 Coronado Railroad. JRP Historical Consulting Services. Archaeological Consulting Services Submitted to Unknown. (NADB# 1131116) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview Treatment Plan for the San Diego Gas & Electric Silvergate and Assessment Kyle, Carolyn E. 2006 Transmission Substation Project, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Kyle Consulting. Submitted to TRC Essex. (NADB# 1131125) Evaluation Study Other
42 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting
Report Author Date Report Title/Submitted to Project Type Archaeological Overview Final Reevaluation of National Register of Historic Places and Assessment Gregory, Carrie, and Eligibility for Naval Station San Diego Historic District. EDAW 2007 Archaeological Jennifer Hirsh Inc. Submitted to U.S. Department of the Navy. Evaluation Study (NADB# 131133) Other Archaeological Overview Station & General Office, California Southern Railroad, 900 W and Assessment Various Various 23rd Street, National City, California 91950; APN 559-040-43- Archaeological 01. Submitted to Unknown. (NADB# 1131294) Evaluation Study Other Archaeological Overview A Programmatic Approach for National Register Eligibility and Assessment Determinations of Prehistoric Sites within the Southern Coast Reedy, Seetha N. 2007 Archaeological Archaeological Region, California. Statistical Research, Inc. Evaluation Study Submitted to Department of Defense. (NADB# 1131460) Other Archaeological Overview Coronado Railroad, City of San Diego / Metropolitan Transit and Assessment Development Board (LDR 40-0378). Legacy 106, Inc. May, Ronald V. 2003 Archaeological Submitted to Save Our Heritage Organization. (NADB# Evaluation Study 1131476) Other Archaeological Overview Western Salt Company Salt Works, 1470 Bay Boulevard, San and Assessment Save Our Heritage 2005 Diego, CA 91911. Save Our Heritage Organization. Submitted Archaeological Organization to Unknown. (NADB# 1131496) Evaluation Study Other
Table 2. Cultural Resources Within the Project Area
Trinomial Site Type Recorder Date Artifacts/Features Eligibility Historic Segment of the Historic Eligible to City of San SDI-13073H Andrew Pigniolo 2000 Railroad Coronado Railroad Diego Register Segment of the Burlington Historic Daniel Ballester, Northern-Santa Fe (formerly SDI-16385H 2002 Ineligible to NRHP Railroad Teresa Woodard Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe) Railroad
Bayshore Bikeway Project 43 2. Project Area Setting
Table 3. Cultural Resources Within One-Half Mile of the APE
Trinomial Location Site Type Recorder Date Artifacts/Features Eligibility 30 m from Prehistoric G. Toren SDI-4886 1977 Isolated chert scraper Not evaluated southern APE Artifact et al. One ovoid hammerstone, 1 Prehistoric 800 m from Richard domed flake scraper, 3 bifacial SDI-4958 Artifact and 1977 Not evaluated southern APE Carrico manos; Chione and Pecten Ecofact Scatter fragments Prehistoric Russell O Flakes and cores of fine-grained 210 m from SDI-5512/6025 Artifact and Collett, Sue 1990 metavolcanic (one core scraper Not evaluated southern APE Ecofact Scatter Wade collected); shell 180 m from Prehistoric SDI-7454 M. Roeder 1979 Shell midden Not evaluated northern APE Ecofact Scatter The majority of the following artifacts dated to the 1930s: milk glass, bleach bottles, pastel Historic Trash 520 m from J. DeCosta, ceramics, perfume bottles; SDI-8873H Dump; Modern 1981 Not evaluated northern APE D. Kupel purple glass and turn mold wine Refuse bottles dated to about 1915; Japanese transfer print ceramics were post-1945; modern trash Prehistoric Andrew More than 20 metavolcanic Artifact and 800 m from Pigniolo, flakes and angular waste; 30 SDI-12090 Ecofact Scatter; 1991 Not evaluated northern APE Steven H. fragments of historic purple Historic Trash Briggs glass, glass, ceramics and metal Scatter Several hearths noted by Andrew Rogers; more than five Prehistoric 300 m from Pigniolo, metavolcanic flakes and angular SDI-12092 Artifact and 1991 Not evaluated northern APE Steven H. waste and one core tool; shell Ecofact Scatter Briggs fragments (mostly Chione sp.) and fire-affected rock Isolated scatters of shellfish Prehistoric fragments; two flake tools and 15 m from Artifact and S. Hector SDI-12093 1993 seven debitage fragments; Not evaluated southern APE Ecofact Scatter; et al. modern asphalt, concrete, glass, Modern Refuse plastic, and other refuse 92 glass and ceramic artifacts, 300 m from Historic Trash Joan C. SDI-16690H 2003 mainly kitchen and Not evaluated northern APE Scatter Brown household/personnel items Mostly rusted hardware, Prehistoric butchered bone, broken glass, 790 m from Ecofact Scatter; Meagan and ceramics; shell midden SDI-17428 2005 Not evaluated northern APE Historic Trash Treinen (Chione, abalone and mussel) Scatter with charcoal and wood; fire affected rock
44 Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Project Area Setting In 1999, Tierra Environmental re-surveyed the rail line for the southern segment of the Bayshore Bikeway project and updated the site record. They noted that the railroad alignment was not in use and in places has been undermined by erosion or covered over by sediments from an adjacent eroding berm. Some of the track and a portion of one trestle had been removed and several trestles were in poor condition. In 2000, Tierra Environmental revisited a portion of the railroad and noted that the tracks had been removed for the construction of the Bayshore Bikeway and parking facilities, and only the bed of the railroad remained.
In April 2001, Dr. Alex Bevil prepared a historical study on behalf of Save Our Heritage Organization (SOHO), and recommended listing the resource on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Bevil’s evaluation found the resource eligible under criteria for community history (Criterion A) and engineering techniques (Criterion C). Subsequently the State Historical Resources Commission decided to list the resource on the CRHR in 2002. However, following a request for re-determination by the City of San Diego, among other organizations, the Commission reversed its earlier determination and found the CBL ineligible to the CRHR (Historic Resources Board 2003).
The CBL was again evaluated to the City of San Diego Historic Resource Register (San Diego Register) in 2003. In this instance, Marie Burke Lia reviewed previous studies of the rail line and concluded that the resource was not historically significant. The city’s Historic Resource Board (HRB) concurred (Historic Resources Board 2003). In January 2004 the HRB reversed its previous finding following a rebuttal report and presentations by SOHO and other historic groups and the CBL was found eligible for historical designation (SOHO 2004). The City Council later overturned the designation. SOHO sued the City and on July 15, 2004, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Paeger ruled in favor of SOHO, finding that the City had acted unlawfully, and requiring that the City set aside its action.
In summary, the CBL has been determined not eligible for the NRHP, not eligible for the CRHR, but eligible for and listed in the San Diego Register.
The APE for the current project includes a segment of the railroad between H and Stella streets and a short section on Harbor Drive just north of the BNSF ROW. This segment of the railroad alignment is in good to fair condition. The track is covered over by tall grasses in places and by asphalt at road crossings. In Segment 8A of the bike path within the Coronado Beltline Railroad ROW between Moss and Stella streets, the bike path will be separated from the centerline of the rail corridor by at least 17 feet, so that the rail line will not be directly impacted.
CA-SDI-16385H SDI-16385H is a segment of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (formerly Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe) Railroad. The track was constructed in 1882-1883 and includes the railroad grade, switches, track ties, and bridges. In 2002, CRM Tech recorded and evaluated the railroad line and two railroad bridges, one over Chollas Creek and the other at 7th Avenue for Section 106 compliance. They noted that the existing tracks and railroad features were mostly modern in
Bayshore Bikeway Project 45 2. Project Area Setting origin, but a segment of older abandoned tracks were present in front of the historic Santa Fe Depot in National City. They recommended that the AT&SF/BNSF rail line is ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):
The completion of the California Southern Railroad marked the beginning of the end of the Southern Pacific Railway Company’s transportation monopoly in the state, an important event in the 19th century California history, and contributed directly to the southern California land boom of the 1880s. However, the existing railroad line and its associated features that constitute site CA-SDI- 16385H, as working components of the modern transportation infrastructure, do not retain sufficient historic integrity to relate to the site’s period of significance. Therefore the site does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [BSO form, Appendix B].
The record search results do not indicate that the BNSF/AT&SF rail line has been evaluated to the CRHR or the San Diego Register. This study provides an evaluation of the portions of this resource within the APE to the CRHR and the San Diego Register.
46 Bayshore Bikeway Project 3. Methods 3. METHODS
ASM Senior Archaeologist Arleen Garcia-Herbst completed an intensive, pedestrian surface inspection of the project area on April 11-15, 2007 to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources.
Where possible, the APE was surveyed in 10-m-wide transects but the specific survey method employed was determined by ground visibility. During the survey, visibility was estimated on a scale of 0-100 percent: 0-25 percent, poor; 26-50 percent, fair; 30-60 percent, fair-good; 51- 75 percent, good; 76-100 percent, excellent. Portions of the project area were excluded from intensive survey due to ground visibility being almost completely obscured by either landscaping or asphalt. Areas of poor to zero surface visibility were not surveyed because a pedestrian survey would not result in identification of cultural resources in this setting. Details of conditions for each of the survey segments are provided below under Survey Conditions.
Photographs and field notes were taken to document the conditions present in segments of the APE and to document the results of the survey. SURVEY CONDITIONS
The project area is highly disturbed. The majority of the project area is developed and/or heavily disturbed by modern development and grading, and the natural shoreline has been changed substantially by either the deposition of natural sand by nearby drainages or the modern deposition of fill sediments.
The ROW along the west side of Harbor Drive West between 32nd Street and Civic Center Drive includes a space between the curb and the fence for Naval Station San Diego (NSSD) primarily. This area is completely covered over with mulch and ground surface visibility is zero.
The ROW along the east side of Harbor Drive East between 32nd Street and NSSD Gate 7, includes an area between the curb and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) property. No special permission was needed to inspect this area. The BNSF ROW consists of a segment of BNSF rail line that extends from Harbor Drive to Civic Center Drive. Ground visibility in this segment of the APE was 51-75 percent or good, depending on the presence of mulch.
The ROW along West 32nd Street (south side) and Tidelands Avenue (west side) includes a space between the curb and the fence demarcating private property. Property abutting the ROW includes the Port of San Diego south of West 32nd Street; and National City Marine Terminal to the west of Tidelands Avenue. Ground visibility in this segment of the APE was 51-75 percent or good, depending on the presence of mulch.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 47 3. Methods The Bay Boulevard ROW incorporates both sides of Bay Boulevard from E to H Street, both sides of one block of H Street west of Bay Boulevard, as well as an abandoned section of the Coronado Belt Line Railroad track (SDI-13073/H) from H Street to Stella Street and an SDG&E high-voltage power line easement from H Street to the South Bay Power Plant entrance located along Bay Boulevard West at approximately Moss Street.
The APE between H and J streets consisted of a paved segment of the SDG&E high-voltage power line easement and an overgrown segment of the Coronado Belt Line Railroad track (SDI-13073/H). Visibility was close to 0 percent throughout except in few bare patches, where visibility was 26-50 percent or fair.
The APE from J to the entrance to the South Bay Power Plant consisted of a fenced-off segment of the SDG&E high-voltage power line easement and the Coronado Belt Line Railroad ROW. The ground surface visible through the chain link fence was 0 percent due to the presence of landscaping (large trees with completely leaf/duff-obscured ground surface below the canopy), gravel covered roads, or mulch-covered cleared areas.
Moss to Stella Street consisted of an abandoned segment of the Coronado Belt Line Railroad track (SDI-13073/H) along Bay Boulevard. Ground visibility in this segment of the APE was estimated at 0-25 percent or poor due to much of the ground surface being covered with grass. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
ASM Associate Archaeologist Michelle Dalope wrote to Dave Singleton of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 25, 2008, requesting a Sacred Lands Search (Appendix C). Mr. Singleton replied on March 27, 2008 that no known Native American Cultural Landscapes were recorded in the immediate project area. He also provided a list of Native American contacts in the San Diego County area. On March 31, 2008, Ms. Dalope sent letters to each of the Native American contacts notifying them of the project and requesting that they contact ASM if they have any concerns regarding the project. No responses have been received to date. CURATION OF FIELD NOTES
Field notes and photographs for this study are curated at ASM’s Carlsbad Office.
48 Bayshore Bikeway Project 4. Report of Findings 4. REPORT OF FINDINGS
The following is a summary of the Historical Resources within the project area. Maps showing the resources within the APE are provided in Appendix D and updated site records are provided in Appendix E. SEGMENT 5 Rail Line on Tidelands Avenue Two abandoned sections of rail line (Figure 10) were observed along and crossing Tidelands Avenue. The northern portion measures approximately 25 m in length, and the southern portion measures approximately 315 m in length. This section of track is shown on the 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance map for National City at which time it was part of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) tracks that served the wharf in National City. Earlier maps of National City show the AT&SF tracks terminating at the AT&SF rail yard west of 9th Avenue and no line extended to the wharf area. By 1926, Bay Avenue (now Tidelands Avenue) had been constructed, and a line is shown extending to the end of the wharf with switch tracks located adjacent to Bay Avenue. The segment of track observed on Tidelands Ave appears to be part of this line. The AT&SF Rail Line (now BNSF) is recorded under the trinomial CA- SDI-16385H. Site CA-SDI-16385H was evaluated in September 2002 for NRHP eligibility and was found to be ineligible because it does not retain sufficient historic integrity to relate to the site’s period of significance (an Updated Historic Resource Record is located in Appendix E).
Figure 9. Overview of the segment of track observed on Tidelands Ave. that is part of CA-SDI-16385H.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 49 4. Report of Findings SEGMENT 7 AND 8A
Coronado Belt Line Railroad (SDI-13073H) An overgrown segment of the Coronado Belt Line (CBL) Railroad track (SDI-13073H; Figure 11) is located within the project APE adjacent to Bay Boulevard West from H Street south to Stella Street. A second short section of this rail line is visible in Civic Center Drive just north of Cleveland Avenue. It continues down Cleveland Avenue, but this segment is outside the project APE. The CBL originally extended 20 miles from downtown San Diego south around the bay to Coronado. The segment of the rail line within the APE is in good to fair condition but has become overgrown with tall grasses. A switch and second track was photo documented between the South Bay Power Plant at Moss and the Bayside Business Park north of Palomar Street. A wooden culvert and wood-lined drainage ditch, likely dating to the rail line construction, was photo documented just south of Palomar Street.
Site CA-SDI-13073H was evaluated for NRHP and many times for the CRHR and the San Diego Register (see discussion above). It has been determined not eligible for the NRHP and recommended not eligible for the CRHR. Through legal action in 2004, a segment of the CBL in the City of San Diego was found to be eligible for historic designation and listing in the San Diego Register. An updated Historic Resource Record is provided in Appendix E that includes the newly recorded wooden culvert and drainage features.
Figure 10. Overview of an overgrown segment of the Coronado Belt Line Railroad track (SDI-13073H).
50 Bayshore Bikeway Project 5. Management Considerations 5. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The primary goals of this study, conducted in support of the Bayshore Bikeway Project, were to identify cultural resources that have the potential to be adversely affected by future development plans, and to provide cultural resource management recommendations (evaluation/mitigation) for specific sites to facilitate future planning needs. The survey accomplished these goals in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and other applicable federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies.
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The NRHP’s standards for evaluating the significance of properties were developed to recognize the accomplishments of all peoples who have made a significant contribution to our country’s history and heritage. The criteria are designed to guide federal agencies and others in evaluating whether a property is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that:
(a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history [36 CFR 60.4].
Generally, properties eligible for NRHP listing are at least 50 years old. Properties less than 50 years of age must be exceptionally important to be considered eligible for listing.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 51 5. Management Considerations CEQA AND THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California,” as cited in Division I, Public Resources Code, Section 5021.1[b].
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance.
The CRHR is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The CRHR includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.
Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR, cited as Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852, consisting of the following:
(1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or (2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
52 Bayshore Bikeway Project 5. Management Considerations (3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or (4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
The Historical Resources Regulations of the Land Development Code pertain only to historical resources that meet the definitions contained in Chapter 11, Article 3, Division 1 of the Code and may differ from the definition of historical resources in these Guidelines and from a determination of significance under CEQA, as provided below.
City of San Diego Historical Resources Register Any improvement, building, structure, sign, interior element and fixture, feature, site, place, district, area or object may be designated as historic by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board if it meets any of the following criteria:
a. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's, a community's or a neighborhood's historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, landscaping or architectural development; b. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; c. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; d. Is representative of the notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman; e. Is listed or has been determined eligible by National Park Service for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or is listed or has been determined eligible by the State Historical Preservation Office for listing on the State Register of Historical Resources; or f. Is a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or is a geographically definable area or neighborhood containing improvements which have a special character, historical interest or aesthetic value or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles in the history and development of the City.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 53 5. Management Considerations City of San Diego CEQA Significance As stated above, if a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register, or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey it may nonetheless be historically significant. If a proposed project has the potential to affect a historical resource, the significance of that resource must be determined. The significance of a historical resource is based on the potential for the resource to address important research questions as documented in a site-specific technical report prepared as part of the environmental review process. Research priorities for the prehistoric, ethnohistoric and historic periods of San Diego history are discussed in Appendix A (San Diego History) to the San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code, Historical Resources Guidelines (Guidelines) and should be used in the determination of historical significance. As a baseline, the City of San Diego has established the following criteria to be used in the determination of significance under CEQA.
An archaeological site must consist of at least three associated artifacts/ecofacts (within an area of 50 square meters) or a single feature and must be at least 45 years of age. Archaeological sites containing only a surface component are generally considered not significant, unless demonstrated otherwise. Such site types may include isolated finds, bedrock milling stations, sparse lithic scatters, and shellfish processing stations. All other archaeological sites are considered potentially significant. The determination of significance is based on a number of factors specific to a particular site including site size, type and integrity; presence or absence of a subsurface deposit, soil stratigraphy, features, diagnostics, and datable material; artifact and ecofact density; assemblage complexity; cultural affiliation; association with an important person or event; and ethnic importance.
The determination of significance for historic buildings, structures, objects and landscapes is based on age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, and integrity.
A site will be considered to possess ethnic significance if it is associated with a burial or cemetery; religious social or traditional activities of a discrete ethnic population; an important person or event as defined by a discrete ethnic population; or the mythology of a discrete ethnic population.
Non-Significant Resource Types Archaeological sites containing only a surface component are generally considered not significant, unless demonstrated otherwise. (Testing is required to document the absence of a subsurface deposit.) Such sites may include:
• Isolates; • Sparse Lithic Scatters; • Isolated Bedrock Milling Stations; and • Shellfish Processing Stations.
54 Bayshore Bikeway Project 5. Management Considerations Sparse Lithic Scatters are identified and evaluated based on criteria from the OHP’s “California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program: Sparse Lithic Scatters” (February 1988). Isolated Bedrock Milling Stations are defined as having no associated site within a 50-meter radius and lacking a subsurface component. Shellfish Processing Stations are defined as containing a minimal amount of lithics and no subsurface deposit.
Historic buildings, structures, objects and landscapes are generally not significant if they are less than 45 years old. A non-significant building or structure located within an historic district is by definition not significant.
Resources found to be non-significant as a result of the survey and assessment will require no further work beyond documentation of the resources and inclusion in the survey and assessment report.
Chula Vista And National City Historic Resource Registers The cities of Chula Vista and National City maintain lists of historic properties within their city limits. In both cities historic preservation is focused toward preservation of historic homes.
The City of Chula is committed to help preserve and maintain important historical resources, principally historic buildings. Properties that meet at least one of the six local criteria may apply for inclusion on the City of Chula Vista List of Historic Sites and may be eligible to participate in the City Of Chula Vista Mills Act Program. For consideration on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites, a site must meet at least one of the following six criteria1:
1. Bears a relationship to overall heritage on a local, state, or national basis 2. Relates to a historic personage who played an important role historically, on a local, state, or national basis. 3. A site where an important event took place. 4. Distinguishing architectural characteristics that are identifiable. 5. Archaeologically significant in its association with pre-history of the area. 6. Has integrity (evidence of original features).
National City National City also maintains a List of Historical Sites. That identifies buildings eligible for the Mills Act program that the city established in 2002.
National City also recognizes California Historical Landmarks (CHLs). Eligibility criteria for CHLs mirror those for the CRHR.
1 http://www.ci.chula- vista.ca.us/city_Services/Development_Services/Planning_Building/Planning/Historic_Pres.asp
Bayshore Bikeway Project 55 5. Management Considerations California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below.
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A resource must be approved for designation by the City Council, be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. CHLs are automatically listed in the CRHR2. EVALUATION OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES
The cultural resources documented within the project area during this survey are listed in Table 4, which also includes an eligibility assessment. This assessment is not a formal eligibility recommendation or determination of NRHP, CRHR or San Diego Register significance, but is intended to relate field observations to the potential for eligibility.
Both sites within the project area have been evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. CA-SDI- 13073H, the Coronado Belt Line was determined not eligible to the NRHP and not eligible to the CRHR, but eligible to the San Diego Register. The BNSF/AT&SF railroad line (CA-SDI- 16385H) was found recommended ineligible for listing the NRHP. It does not appear to have been evaluated to the CRHR nor the San Diego Register.
BNSF/ AT&SF Rail Line (CA-SDI-16385H) An abandoned section of rail line was observed along Tidelands Avenue between Civic Center Drive and West 19th Street. This section of track is shown on the 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance map for National City at which time it was part of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) tracks that served the wharf in National City. Earlier maps of National City show the AT&SF tracks terminating at the AT&SF rail yard west of 9th Avenue and no line extended to the wharf area. By 1926, Bay Avenue (now Tidelands Avenue) had been constructed, and a line is shown extending to the end of the wharf with switch tracks located adjacent to Bay. The segment of track observed on Tidelands Avenue appears to be part of this line.
2 http://www.ci.national-city.ca.us/index.aspx?page=169
56 Bayshore Bikeway Project 5. Management Considerations Table 4. Recommendations for Cultural Resources Within the Project Area
Previously Potential Trinomial Site Type Artifacts/Features Condition Recorded? Eligibility Recommendations Eligible for the No further action; Segment 7 and 8A San Diego of the bike path will be separated Good; disturbed; sections Register; from the centerline of the rail Historic Segment of the Historic SDI-13073H undermined by erosion, removed Yes recommended corridor by at least 16 feet, so the Railroad Coronado Railroad and/or repaired eligible to rail line will not be directly impacted CRHR and local and adverse effects to this historical registers resource will be avoided Ineligible for the NRHP; Segment of the Burlington recommended Poor; disturbed; almost all Historic Northern-Santa Fe (formerly ineligible to the SDI-16385H components have been replaced Yes No further action required Railroad Atchison, Topeka and Santa CRHP, San and are post-1975 Fe) Railroad Diego Register and local registers
Bayshore Bikeway Project 57 5. Management Considerations The AT&SF Rail Line (now BNSF) is recorded under the trinomial CA-SDI-16385H. Almost all components have been replaced and are post-1975. In addition, the newly recorded segment of this line on Tidelands Avenue is incorporated into the street. Asphalt covers the original rail bed and ties and only the steel rails are visible at the road surface. The original AT&SF rail yard is now completely developed with office buildings and warehouses. This segment of the rail line has lost integrity of design, setting, materials, feeling and association and does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance. It is therefore recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR or local registers. Eligibility for the San Diego Register is not considered here as this segment of the BNSF/AT&SF rail line lies outside the City limits. This recommendation is consistent with the previous determination of ineligibility for the NRHP.
Assessment of Impacts As this resource is not eligible to the NRHP, the CRHR or local registers, construction of the proposed bikeway will not result in impacts to a historic property.
Coronado Belt Line Railroad (CA-SDI-13073H) A segment of the Coronado Belt Line Railroad track (CA-SDI-13073H) is located within the project APE adjacent to Bay Boulevard (west side) from H Street south to Stella Street in Segments 7 and 8A. The rail line is in good condition but has become overgrown with tall grasses. A switch and second track were photodocumented between the South Bay Power Plant at Moss and the Bayside Business Park north of Palomar Street. A wooden culvert and wooden drainage ditch, probably dating to the rail line construction, was photodocumented just south of Palomar Street. Sections of the rail line have been undermined by erosion, removed and/or repaired. However, its overall integrity is good.
After a contentious legal battle that pitted local conservation groups against City Historic Resource Board staff, a segment of the Coronado Belt Line in the City of San Diego was been found eligible for listing in the San Diego Register. The CBL was determined not eligible for the NRHP and recommended not eligible for the CRHR. While the segment of the CBL within the project area is outside the City of San Diego, the fact that another segment of the same rail line was found eligible for listing in the City’s Historic Resources Register indicates that there is potential for this segment of the rail line to be eligible for listing on either the CRHR or on a local Historic Resources register.
For the purposes of the design and planning of this project, it should be assumed that the segment of the CBL within the project area is eligible for listing on the CRHR and local registers therefore impacts to this resource should be avoided.
Assessment of Impacts In Segment 7 the bike path would parallel the Coronado Beltline Railroad line within the SDG&E Easement. This segment of the proposed bike path would be set back from the railroad ROW by approximately 58 feet.
58 Bayshore Bikeway Project 5. Management Considerations In Segment 8A, there are two alternative alignments. Under the SDG&E alternative approximately 100 feet north of the South Bay Power Plant entrance, the proposed bike path would cross the railroad tracks within the SD&AE railroad. This crossing will not result in impacts to the integrity of the historic railroad line.
Under the SD&AE Railroad ROW alignment, the proposed bike path would be set back from the railroad tracks by a minimum of 10 feet. From J Street to L Street, the existing berm located along the west side of the railroad tracks would be lowered to provide a more open setting for bicyclists. Between the transition at the I-5 ramps and Palomar Street, approximately 3 feet of the bike path would remain in the SD&AE Railroad ROW, and 9 feet would be located within the Bay Boulevard ROW. This proposed alignment will not result in direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to the historic resource as the bike path will be set back from CBL by at least 16 feet from the centerline of the rail line.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 59
6. Summary and Recommendations 6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Two cultural resources were identified within the project area by records searches. These two historic resources are railroad lines and infrastructural in nature. The eligibility of one of these properties, the BNSF/AT&SF rail line (CA-SDI-16385H) was determined by previous projects to be not eligible for the NRHP as site integrity has been compromised to a significant degree. The current investigation supports the previous determination and recommends that the resource is also not eligible for listing in the CRHR and local registers.
The Coronado Belt Line (CA-SDI-13073H) has been previously evaluated several times. Previously it has been determined to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP and recommended not eligible for the CRHR. It has been determined eligible and is listed in the City of San Diego Register of Historical Resources. Based on the previous evaluations and the history of litigation surrounding this resource, it is recommended that the segment of the Coronado Belt Line (CBL) within the proposed project area is eligible for listing in the CRHR and on local registers. Impacts to this resource should be avoided. The project as currently planned will not result in impacts to this resource.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 61
References REFERENCES
ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2008 Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Submitted to the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department.
Atherton, Lewis E. 1970 The Services of the Frontier Merchant. In The West of the American People, edited by Allan G. Bogue, Thomas D. Phillips, and James E. Wright. F.E. Peacock, Itasca, Illinois.
Bull, Charles S. 1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 1(3):15-64. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito - La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 35-42. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
Christensen, Lynne E. 1990 The Late Prehistoric Yuman People of San Diego County, California: Their Settlement and Subsistence System. 1992 The Late Prehistoric Yuman Settlement and Subsistence System: Coastal Adaptation. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by T. Jones, pp. 217-230. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. 10.
City of San Diego 2001 San Diego Municipal Code Land Development Code. Historical Resources Guidelines. Amended September 7, 2001.
Cuero, Delfina 1970 The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero, A Diegueño Indian, As Told to Florence C. Shipek. Malki Museum Press, Morongo Indian Reservation.
Dumke, Glenn S. 1942 Advertising Southern California Before the Boom of 1887. Southern California Quarterly 24(1):14-24. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino.
Engelhardt, Fr. Zephyrin O.F.M. 1920 San Diego Mission. James H. Barry Company, San Francisco.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 63 References Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten 1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. University of California, Los Angeles.
Ezell, Paul H. 1983 A New Look at the San Dieguito Culture. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 1(3):103-109. 1987 The Harris Site - An Atypical San Dieguito Site or Am I Beating a Dead Horse? In San Dieguito - La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 15-22. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
Fogel, Robert William 1970 A Quantitative Approach to the Study of Railroads in American Economic Growth. In The West of the American People, edited by Allen G. Bogue, Thomas D. Phillips, and James E Wright, pp. 238-245. F. E. Peacock Publishers, Itasca, Illinois.
Gallegos, Dennis R., Susan M. Hector, and Stephen R. van Wormer 1987 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
Gross, G. Timothy 2004 Obituary: Dr. George Francis Carter. San Diego County Archaeological Society Newsletter 32(3):14-15.
Hanft, Robert M. 1984 San Diego and Arizona: The Impossible Railroad. Trans-Anglo Books, Glendale, California.
Haynes, C. Vance 1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709-715.
Hector, Susan M. 1984 Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gather Activities in Southern San Diego, California. Ph.D. dissertation.
Hedges, Ken 1975 Notes on the Kumeyaay: A Problem of Identification. Journal of California Anthropology 2:71-87.
64 Bayshore Bikeway Project References Historical Resource Board 2003 Memorandum to the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board from Teri Delcamp, Senior Planner/Historian regarding the Coronado Belt Line. December 10, 2003.
Hohenthal, William D., Jr. 2001 Tipai Ethnographic Notes; A Baja California Indian Community at Mid-Century. Ballena Press.
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1992 Perspectives from the Old World on the Habitation of the New. American Antiquity 57(2):345-347.
Jenks, Leland H. 1970 Railroads as an Economic Force in American Development. In The West of the American People, edited by Allen G. Bogue, Thomas D. Phillips, and James E. Wright, pp. 233-37. F.E. Peacock, Itasca, Illinois.
Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. R. Brown, K. C. Mitchell and H. W. Haney, pp. 541- 545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.
Jones, Terry L. 1991 Marine-Resource Value and the Priority of Coastal Settlement: A California Perspective. American Antiquity 56(3):419-443. 1992 Settlement Trends Along the California Coast. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 1-38. Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis.
Killea, Lucy Lytle 1966 The Political History of a Mexican Pueblo: San Diego From 1825 to 1845: Part I San Diego. Journal of San Diego History 12(30):3-35.
Kroeber, A. L. 1970 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley. Third printing. Reprint of Bulletin No. 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution (1925).
Lowell, Douglas 1985 The California Southern Railroad and the Growth of San Diego, Part 1. Journal of San Diego History 31(4):245-260.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 65 References Luomala, Katherine 1978 Tipai and Ipai. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
MacPhail, Elizabeth 1979 The Story of New San Diego and its Founder Alonzo E. Horton, 2nd edition. San Diego Historical Society, San Diego.
Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227.
Meltzer, D. J. 1993 Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Evolutionary Anthropology 1(5):157-168.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc.
Moriarty, James Robert, III 1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4:20-30. 1969 The San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships. Anthropological Journal of Canada.
Neuerburg, Norman 1986 The Changing Faces of Mission San Diego. Journal of San Diego History 32(1):1-27.
Owen, E. A. 1984 The Americas: the Case Against an Ice-Age Human Population. In The Origins of Modern Humans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence, edited by F. H. Smith and F. Spencer, pp. 517-563. Alan R. Liss, New York.
Pourade, Richard F. 1961 Time of the Bells. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1963 The Silver Dons. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1964 Glory Years. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1965 Gold in The Sun. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Robinson, A. 1947 Life in California. Biobooks, Oakland [1846].
66 Bayshore Bikeway Project References Robinson, W. W. 1942 The Southern California Real Estate Boom of the Twenties. Southern California Quarterly 24(1):23-28.
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929a Field Notes and Maps of SDMM W-150 from the Field Log of Malcolm J. Rogers, Curator of Archaeology, San Diego Museum of Man. 1929b Report of an Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Mohave Sink Region. Archaeology 1(1), San Diego Museum (often cited as San Diego Museum Papers No. 1). 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167- 198.
Save Our Heritage Organization (SOHO) 2004 Coronado Railroad Designated Again – Designation to be Appealed. Reflections, Quarterly Newsletter of Save Our Heritage Organization, Volume 35:1. 2005 Court Rules Historic Designation of Coronado Belt Line Unlawfully Set Aside By City Council. Reflections, Quarterly Newsletter of Save Our Heritage Organization, Volume 36:3.
Smythe, William E. 1908 History of San Diego, 1542-1907: An Account of the Rise and Progress of the Pioneer Settlement on the Pacific Coast. 2 volumes. The History Company, San Diego.
Spier, Leslie 1923 Southern Diegueño Customs. University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1):1-358.
Starr, Raymond G. 1986 San Diego: A Pictorial History. Donning Company, Norfolk.
Strand, Rudolph (compiler) 1962 Geologic Map of California, San Diego – El Centro Sheet. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento.
Taylor, R. E. 1991 Frameworks for Dating the Late Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. In The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by Tom D. Dillehay and David J. Meltzer. ORC Press, Boca Raton.
Bayshore Bikeway Project 67 References True, Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23:255-263. 1966 Archaeology Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. University of California, Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 2:1-39.
Van Wormer, Stephen R. 1983 The Wetherbee Planing Mill: A Case History of the 1880s Boom and Bust. The Journal of San Diego History 29(1):20-27.
Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. University of New Mexico.
Warren, Claude N. 1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site, M. J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin- Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1, Portales. 1985 Garbage About the Foundations: A Comment on Bull’s Assertion. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1):82-90. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito - La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittner 1993 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Periods. In Historic Properties Background Study for the City of San Diego Clean Water Program. Brian F. Mooney Associates. Prepared for Clean Water Program for Greater San Diego.
Waterman, Thomas 1910 The Religious Practices of the Diegueño Indians. University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:271-358.
68 Bayshore Bikeway Project Certification CERTIFICATION
Preparer: Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin Title: Senior Archaeologist
Signature: Date: November 10, 2008
Bayshore Bikeway Project 69