DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase II Evaluation of a Portion of Archaeological Site CA-SDI-12093

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase II Evaluation of a Portion of Archaeological Site CA-SDI-12093 Phase II Evaluation of a Portion of Archaeological Site CA-SDI-12093 Chollas Creek Bicycle Trail Project San Diego, California Prepared for Lara Gates City of San Diego 1222 First Avenue, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 T: (619) 236-6006 [email protected] Prepared by David M. Smith Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA BonTerra Psomas 3 Hutton Centre, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 T: (714) 751-7373 F: (714) 545-8883 August 2015 Chollas Creek Bicycle Trail Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information Sheet .............................................. MS-1 Management Summary/Abstract ........................................................................................... MS-2 1.0 Natural and Cultural Resources Settings ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Natural Setting ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Cultural Setting ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Early Man Period (Before 8500 BC) .......................................................... 1 1.2.2 Paleo-Indian Period (8500-6000 BC) ......................................................... 1 1.2.3 Early Archaic Period (6000 BC-AD 0) ........................................................ 1 1.2.4 Late Prehistoric Period (AD 0-1769) .......................................................... 2 1.2.5 Ethnohistoric Period................................................................................... 2 1.2.6 Historic Periods.......................................................................................... 2 2.0 Background Research .................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 5 4.0 Field Methods .................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Personnel .............................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Shovel Test Pits .................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Previous Disturbances .......................................................................................... 7 5.0 Results ............................................................................................................................. 8 5.1 Shellfish ................................................................................................................. 9 5.2 Historic .................................................................................................................. 9 5.3 Constraints .......................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Management Considerations ....................................................................................... 12 7.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 13 8.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 13 9.0 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 15 TABLES Table Page 1 Results of Shovel Test Pit Excavations by Depth ............................................................. 8 2 STP Depths, Soils Types, Bottom Composition .............................................................. 11 R:\Projects\5SAN\0210\Phase II Report-080615.docx i Table of Contents Chollas Creek Bicycle Trail Project FIGURES Figure Page 1 STP 1 Located Near Station 119+50 ................................................................................ 7 2 Concrete Under the Iceplant Adjacent to STP 5 ............................................................. 10 3 First Appearance of the Retaining Wall. View to the Northeast From Approximately Station 116+00 ........................................................................................ 11 4 Southerly View of the Retaining Wall South of Station 116+00 ...................................... 12 EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page 1 Area of Potential Effects ............................................................................................. MS-2 2 Proposed Area of Potential Effects and Approximate Shovel Test Pit Locations ....... MS-2 R:\Projects\5SAN\0210\Phase II Report-080615.docx ii Table of Contents Chollas Creek Bicycle Trail Project NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE (NADB) INFORMATION SHEET PHASE II EVALUATION OF A PORTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CA-SDI-12093 CHOLLAS CREEK BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA By David M. Smith Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA August 2015 Submitted by: BonTerra Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707-8794 (714) 751-7373 [email protected] [email protected] Submitted to: Lara Gates City of San Diego 1222 First Avenue, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 236-6006 [email protected] BonTerra Psomas Project Number: 5SAN021000 Key Words: Chollas Creek, CA-SDI-12092, CA-SDI-12093, Shelltown R:\Projects\5SAN\0210\Phase II Report-080615.docx MS-1 Phase II Evaluation Report Chollas Creek Bicycle Trail Project MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT PURPOSE AND SCOPE The City of San Diego is planning to construct a bicycle path south of Interstate (I) 5 and east of I-15 in San Diego. Previous research indicates that the project may impact two cultural resources: CA-SDI-12093 and P-37-025680. On November 5, 2014, Rebecca Malone from the City of San Diego completed an environmental review of the Chollas Creek Bicycle Trail and determined that additional information is required related to cultural resources. Specifically, the bike path alignment APE may lie within a portion of CA-SDI-12093 and requires further evaluation in accordance with the Historical Resource Regulations of the Land Development Code and the Historical Resources Guidelines. In addition, a portion of the AT&SF Railroad is within the project APE and will require further evaluation. To determine the presence or absence of an archaeological deposit and to determine the significance of any portion of CA-SDI-12093 that may remain within the APE, BonTerra Psomas archaeologists drafted an Archaeological Testing Plan, approved by the City of San Diego, which describes the methods and protocols of archaeological testing and evaluations that will be completed for CA-SDI-12093. The site has been determined ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on at least two occasions but, because of its size, significant pockets of cultural resources could remain buried in areas not previously tested. Initial research suggests that the site will only be impacted by the project where the trail will be placed between I-15 and Chollas Creek (south of Main Street). This is a 1,000-foot-long stretch of sloped embankment above the creek. It is in this area that the archaeological testing occurred. The historic evaluation of the railroad (P-37-025680) is being undertaken independently and will be documented in a separate, stand-alone historic resources evaluation report. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS For the purposes of this testing plan, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (i.e., the geographic areas within which a project may impact historic properties) is defined as the approximate 1,000- foot-long stretch of sloped embankment between I-15 and Chollas Creek, south of Main Street and north of South 32nd Street. The width of the APE is defined as the area between the curb along the street and the high water line of Chollas Creek. Exhibit 1 depicts the proposed project alignment; Exhibit 2 depicts the APE within the larger project site and shows the proposed Shovel Test Pit (STP) locations. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS A portion of one prehistoric resource is believed to lie within the APE. The site—CA-SDI-12093— was initially recorded as a temporary camp by Malcolm Rogers, who noted a relatively shallow midden, assigned the site to the Late Prehistoric Period, and noted that the site had been recently impacted by development. The first testing of the site recovered faunal materials and shell from near the 32nd Street Bridge over Chollas Creek in 1982. In 1991, a second portion of the site was tested near 32nd Street and Harbor Drive. An intact, 40-centimeter-thick midden containing debitage, fire-affected-rock, millingstones, and lithic tools as well as faunal remains was recovered. Despite this, that portion of the site was deemed ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Testing conducted in the eastern corner of the site in 1993 identified shellfish scatter and scant traces of lithics intermixed with historic debris. The site was recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with that recommendation. In 2000, the area near 32nd Street and Harbor Drive tested in 1991 was re-tested with negative results. In 2008, monitoring conducted during trenching R:\Projects\5SAN\0210\Phase II Report-080615.docx MS-2 Phase II Evaluation Report Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Area of Potential Effects National City, CA Point Loma, CA Proposed Path Alignment Township:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OBSIDIAN: an INTERDISCIPLINARY Bffiliography
    OBSIDIAN: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY BffiLIOGRAPHY Craig E. Skinner Kim J. Tremaine International Association for Obsidian Studies Occasional Paper No. 1 1993 \ \ Obsidian: An Interdisciplinary Bibliography by Craig E. Skinner Kim J. Tremaine • 1993 by Craig Skinner and Kim Tremaine International Association for Obsidian Studies Department of Anthropology San Jose State University San Jose, CA 95192-0113 International Association for Obsidian Studies Occasional Paper No. 1 1993 Magmas cooled to freezing temperature and crystallized to a solid have to lose heat of crystallization. A glass, since it never crystallizes to form a solid, never changes phase and never has to lose heat of crystallization. Obsidian, supercooled below the crystallization point, remained a liquid. Glasses form when some physical property of a lava restricts ion mobility enough to prevent them from binding together into an ordered crystalline pattern. Aa the viscosity ofthe lava increases, fewer particles arrive at positions of order until no particle arrangement occurs before solidification. In a glaas, the ions must remain randomly arranged; therefore, a magma forming a glass must be extremely viscous yet fluid enough to reach the surface. 1he modem rational explanation for obsidian petrogenesis (Bakken, 1977:88) Some people called a time at the flat named Tok'. They were going to hunt deer. They set snares on the runway at Blood Gap. Adder bad real obsidian. The others made their arrows out of just anything. They did not know about obsidian. When deer were caught in snares, Adder shot and ran as fast as he could to the deer, pulled out the obsidian and hid it in his quiver.
    [Show full text]
  • HEP Letterhead Template
    HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com July 7, 2017 Mr. Chris Loughridge CLL-01 CLL-Roselle, LLC 3565 Riviera Drive San Diego, California 92109 Subject: 10325 Roselle Street (Project No. 150566) Cultural Resources Report Addendum Dear Mr. Loughridge: This letter report serves as an addendum to the cultural resources report Archaeological Resources on a Lot on Roselle Street, San Diego, California by G. Timothy Gross (May 2009) and the addendum to that report, prepared by Mary Robbins-Wade of HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) in January 2015. This letter report was prepared in response to a request from City of San Diego (City) staff that an archaeologist and a Native American monitor assess the current condition of the cultural resources within the project site. The proposed project design has not changed since the 2009 submittal. Site conditions within the project footprint have not changed, and the proposed data recovery plan is still adequate to mitigate potential project impacts, as described below. BACKGROUND The Roselle Street project (project) is located within the significant archaeological and cultural resource site known as Ystagua (CA-SDI-4609). The property is located on Roselle Street in Sorrento Valley, in the City of San Diego, in western San Diego County. The parcel is on the alluvial flats along Carroll Canyon Creek in Soledad Canyon, at the end of Roselle Street, although some of the steep valley wall is included in the eastern portion of the property, as well. On July 23, 2009, the project property was designated by the City’s Historical Resources Board (HRB) as HRB Site #924, Village of Ystagua Area #1.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN for The
    FINAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN for the APPROVED SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC SUNRISE POWERLINK FINAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR SOUTHERN ROUTE, SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Bureau of Land Management El Centro Field Office 1661 S. 4th Street El Centro, California and SDG&E Special Projects 8315 Century Park Court, CP 21G San Diego, California 92123 Prepared by: David R. Iversen, MA, RPA Arleen Garcia-Herbst, M.A., RPA Don Laylander, M.A. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2034 Corte del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011 July 2010 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT .................................................................. v 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 Reroutes.......................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 9 CONSTRUCTION METHODS ......................................................................................... 9 DESCRIPTION OF AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ................................................ 10 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 11 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey of the Melrose Drive Extension
    Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Melrose Drive Extension Project, Oceanside, California Prepared for: Seán Cárdenas, RPA Senior Project Manager HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941 Prepared by: Susan M. Hector, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D. Senior Archaeologist And Michelle Dalope Associate Archaeologist December 2009 2034 Corte Del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011 (760) 804-5757 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND EVALUATION FOR THE MELROSE DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Seán Cárdenas, RPA Senior Project Manager HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941 Prepared by: Susan M. Hector, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Ph.D. Senior Archaeologist Michelle Dalope Associate Archaeologist ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2034 Corte Del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011 December 2009 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 2. PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND ................................................... 5 ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 5 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL SEQUENCE .................................................... 6 Terminological Framework ..................................................................... 6 Human Occupation Prior to 11,500 B.P. ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Report
    SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Archaeological Survey, Testing, and Evaluation of Three Bedrock Milling Feature Sites, and Evaluation of One-Built Environment Resource for the Stonemark Estates Project in Unincorporated San Diego County, California Prepared for Stonemark 26, LLC Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants Mav 2008 \ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TESTING, AND EVALUATION OF THREE BEDROCK MILLING FEATURE SITES, AND EVALUATION OF ONE BUILT-ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE FOR THE STONEMARK ESTATES PROJECT IN UNINCORPORATED SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Tentative Map: TM5479 DPLU Environmental Log Number: REZ 06-003 Lead Agency: Department of Planning and Land Use County of San Diego 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B San Diego, Califomia 92123-1666 (858) 694-3754 Contact: Terry Powers Prepared for: Stonemark 26, LLC 5422 Napa Street San Diego, Califomia 92110 Contact: Walid Romaya Prepared by: Michael W. Tuma^ M.S., RPA Signature Caprice D. (KipKip) Hamper, M.A., RPA and Susan Underbrink, MA., RPA SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 625 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 190 South Pasadena, Califomia 91030 626-240-0587 www.swca.com Contact: Caprice D. (Kip) Harper USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle San Marcos, CA (1968, Photorevised 1983) SWCA Project No. 14004 SWCA CRRD No. 2008-92 May 2008 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDY STONEMARK ESTATES PROJECT NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION Authors: Michael W. Tuma, Caprice D. (Kip) Harper, and Susan Underbrink Firm: SWCA Environmental Consultants, 625 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 190 South Pasadena, Califomia 91030 Client/Project
    [Show full text]
  • Phase-1 Cultural Resources Survey
    CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF THE BROOKFIELD MINOR RANCH PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MENIFEE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USGS Romoland 7.5' Quadrangle; Township 5S, Range 3W, Sections 13 and 24 Prepared for: Albert A. WEBB Associates Riverside, California 92506 Prepared by: Tiffany Clark and Dennis McDougall Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 3550 East Florida Avenue, Suite H Hemet, CA 92544-4937 April 2019 Keywords: 598 acres surveyed; City of Menifee; Riverside County; CEQA Phase I; Section 106 NHPA; two prehistoric cultural resources; bedrock milling features; lithic scatter; CA-RIV-3429 (P-33-003429); CA-RIV-12345 (P-33-24902) CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... iv 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description and Location .............................................................................1 1.2 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................................1 1.2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations .....................................................................4 1.2.2 State Laws and Regulations .........................................................................4 1.3 Area of Potential Effects (APE) ...............................................................................5 1.4 Report Organization .................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Juan Manuel Rivera Acosta Phd Thesis
    LEAVE US ALONE, WE DO NOT WANT YOUR HELP. LET US LIVE OUR LIVES; INDIGENOUS RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGENESIS IN NUEVA VIZCAYA (COLONIAL MEXICO) Juan Manuel Rivera Acosta A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2017 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11060 This item is protected by original copyright Leave us alone, we do not want your help. Let us live our lives; Indigenous resistance and ethnogenesis in Nueva Vizcaya (colonial Mexico) Juan Manuel Rivera Acosta This thesis is submitted in partial FulFilment For the degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews October 2015 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Juan Manuel Rivera Acosta, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 75,000 words in length, has been written by me, and that it is the record of work carried out by me, or principally by myself in collaboration with others as acknowledged, and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2010 and as a candidate for the degree of PhD in Social Anthropology and Amerindian Studies in September 2010; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2010 and 2015. Date 29-10-2015 signature of candidate ……… 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of PhD in Social Anthropology and Amerindian Studies in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
    [Show full text]
  • ROMOLAND USGS 7.5-Min
    PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE MENIFEE TRACT 37400 PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA (ROMOLAND U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute quadrangle, Township 5 South / Range 3 West Section 16 SBBM) Assssor’s Parcel Numbers 331-080-005-7, 331-080-009-12, 331-080-018-21, 331-080-024, 331-080-025, 331-080-027, and 331-080-028 Prepared on Behalf of: The Garrett Group, LLC, Miriam Rodriguez Two Betterworld Circle, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590 951-801-1857 Prepared for: The City of Menifee Planning Department 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Prepared by: Sue A. Wade Heritage Resources P.O. Box 8 Ramona, CA 92065 760-445-3502 September 12, 2018 (Field Survey 12/27/2017) Heritage Resources Project Number 17010 Keywords: 46.9 Acres, Negative Results MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents the methods and results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Menifee Tract 37400 property. The project property consists of 46.9 acres located in Perris Valley, southeast of the community of Romoland and north of the community of Sun City, in the City of Menifee. The project is a Tentative Tract Map (No. 37400) proposal to the City of Menifee for residential development. The proposal is by The Garrett Group, Two Better World Circle, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590. Proposed site improvements will include 174 single-family residential buildings, a 1.23-acre centrally located park, a water quality basin, and associated surface improvements. Development of the project will most likely include minimal cuts and fills of up to a few feet based on existing topography of the site (GeoTek 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • San Onofre to Encina
    ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STATEMENT SAN ONOFRE TO ENCINA 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PREPARED FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 PREPARED BY: WESTEC SERVICES, INC. 1520 STATE STREET, SUITE 240 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 AUGUST 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 General 1 1.2 Scope of the Environmental Data 2 Statement (EDS) 1.3 Need for the Project 2 1.4 Preparation Staff 3 1.5 Certification 3 II PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 2.1 Location 5 2.2 Objectives S 2.3 Project Characteristics 8 2.4 Construction Methods 15 2.5 Operation and Maintenance 16 2.6 Environmental Criteria 16 III EXISTING CONDITIONS 17 3.1 Land Resources 17 3.1.1 Overview 17 3.1.2 Topography 18 3.1.3 Geology and Geologic Structure 19 3.1.4 Soils 20 3.1.5 Geologic Hazards 20 3.1.6 Soil Erosion 21 3.1.7 Volcanic Activity 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 3.1.8 Areal Land Subsidence 22. 3.1.9 Mineral Resources 22 3.1.10 Seismicity 22 3.2 Vegetation, Wildlife and Habitat 24 3.2.1 Vegetation 24 3.2.2 Wildlife and Habitat 27 3.2.3 High Interest Species 29 3.3 Air Quality 35 3.3.1 Meteorology 35 3.3.2 Air Quality 35 3.3.3 Electrical Phenomena 35 3.4 Hydrology 37 3.4.1 Water Quality 38 .3.5 Land Use 38 3.5.1 . Overview 38 3.5.2 Construction Areas 40 3.6 Socio-Economic Factors 42 3.7 Cultural Resources 42 3.7.1 Archaeology 3.7.2 Paleontology 61 3.8 Aesthetics 62 3.9 Noise 6.) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page IV ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 65 4.1 Land -Resources 65 4.1.1 Overview 65 4.1.2 Landform Alteration 66 4.1.3 Erosion Potential 66 4.1.4 Landslide Potential 66 4.1.5 Flooding 67 4.2 Biological Resources 67 4.3 Air Quality 68 4.3.1 Meteorology 68 4.3.2 Air Quality 69 4.3.3 Electrical Phenomena 69 4.4 Hydrology 76 4.4.1 Surface Water 76 4.4.2 Groundwater 78 4.4.3 Water Quality 78 41.5 Land Use 78 4.5.1 Overview 78 4.5.2 .
    [Show full text]
  • Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines
    Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines Prepared for: The City of Carlsbad, California Prepared by: ECORP Consulting, Inc. with contributions from Cogstone Resource Management September 2017 Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Guidelines CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose and Need for Guidelines................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Organization ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Definitions of Resources .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Types ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Cultural Association .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Time Period .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Local
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4.4: Cultural Resources
    4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4 Cultural Resources This section addresses the Housing Element Update (HEU) in relation to potential impacts associated with historic structures, archaeological resources, and paleontological resources. Information presented in this section was obtained from the Final Existing Conditions Report, the Encinitas Register of Historic Places, the geological map of the Oceanside 30 feet x 60 feet quadrangle Paleontological Resources - County of San Diego, and additional secondary source documentation, as available (City of Encinitas 2010, 2015a; State of California 2010; and Deméré and Walsh 1994). 4.4.1 Existing Conditions 4.4.1.1 Cultural Setting a. Prehistoric Period The prehistoric cultural sequence in San Diego County is generally conceived as comprising three basic periods: the Paleoindian, dated between about 11,500 and 8,500 years ago and manifested by the artifacts of the San Dieguito Complex; the Archaic, lasting from about 8,500 to 1,500 years ago (A.D. 500) and manifested by the cobble and core technology of the La Jollan Complex; and the Late Prehistoric, lasting from about 1,500 years ago to historic contact (i.e., A.D. 500 to 1769) and represented by the Cuyamaca Complex. The Paleoindian Period in San Diego County is most closely associated with the San Dieguito Complex. The San Dieguito assemblage consists of well-made scraper planes, choppers, scraping tools, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and leaf-shaped points. The San Dieguito Complex is thought to represent an early emphasis on hunting. The Archaic Period brings an apparent shift toward a more generalized economy and an increased emphasis on seed resources, small game, and shellfish.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Survey Report for the Centre City Shopping Center Project
    Archaeological Survey Report for the Centre City Shopping Center Project, Escondido, California Prepared for OnPoint Development 7514 Girard Avenue, Suite 1515 La Jolla, CA 92037 Contact: Mr. Todd Dwyer Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 P 619.308.9333 RECON Number 8478 May 5, 2017 Harry J. Price, Project Archaeologist Archaeological Survey Report NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION Author: Harry J. Price. Consulting Firm: RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Report Date: May 5, 2017 Report Title: Archaeological Survey Report for the Centre City Shopping Center Project, Escondido, California Submitted to: NLA Acquisitions, LLC 725 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 600 Franklin TN 37067 Contact: Mr. Todd Dwyer Contract Number: RECON Number 8478 U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Map: 7.5-minute, Valley Center 1996 Acreage: 5.24 acres Keywords: Survey; Escondido quadrangle; Harmony Grove, Escondido Creek; Negative Survey, California; San Diego County. The Centre City Shopping Center Project is located at the intersection of West Mission Avenue and Centre City Parkway, in the city of Escondido, California. The project proposes to demolish an existing motor hotel and restaurant and replace them with two commercial buildings, a restaurant, and a car wash on a 2.24-acre-parcel. A records search at the South Coastal Information Center identified 48 cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the project area. None of these resources were mapped within or adjacent to the project area. A Sacred Lands request was also sent to the Native American Heritage Commission on November 17, 2016, and a reply was received on November 18, 2016.
    [Show full text]