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...... 7 Paleoindian Period (11,500-8500/7500 B.P.) ...... 7 Archaic Period (8500 B.P. - 1300/800 B.P.) ...... 8 Late Prehistoric Period (1300/800 B.P. - 200 B.P.) ...... 9 ETHNOHISTORIC CONTEXT...... 10 HISTORY OF RANCHO GUAJOME LAND GRANT ...... 12 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE VICINITY AND AT GUAJOME REGIONAL PARK ...... 13 SDM-W-479/SDI-8241 ...... 14 SDM-W-480 ...... 14 SDM-W-481 ...... 14 SDM-W-482 ...... 14 SDM-W-568 ...... 14

3. RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ...... 17

4. SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS ...... 19 SURVEY METHODS ...... 19 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 20 Prehistoric Cultural Resources ...... 20 Historic Cultural Resources ...... 26 Historic Building Survey ...... 26

5. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33 CALIFORNIA REGISTER AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ...... 33 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ...... 34 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ..... 34 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE (RPO) ...... 35 Historic Resources ...... 35 Prehistoric Resources ...... 36

Melrose Drive Extension i Table of Contents

REFERENCES ...... 39

APPENDICES ...... 47 APPENDIX A. Native American Consultation APPENDIX B. House Photos APPENDIX C. DPR Form

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Project vicinity...... 2 Figure 2. Project location...... 3 Figure 3. Road alignments and study area...... 21 Figure 4. Conceptual trail plan along North Santa Fe Avenue and the proposed Melrose Drive extension...... 23 Figure 5. South façade of 2283 Glenview Lane...... 32

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Cultural Resources Within the One-Mile Records Search Radius of the Melrose Drive Extension Project Area ...... 17 Table 2. Results of 2008 Survey for Parcels within the Study Area...... 24 Table 3. Dates of Construction for Buildings within Alignments A-C and the Study Area...... 27 Table 4. Eligibility Assessment for Houses Over 45 Years Old in Alignments A-C and the Study Area...... 30

ii Melrose Drive Extension 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the results of archaeological and historical resources surveys for the Melrose Drive Extension project located between North Santa Fe Avenue and Spur Avenue (Figures 1 and 2). Melrose Drive currently terminates at North Santa Fe Avenue (County Route S14) and begins again at Spur Avenue, north of Guajome Lake Road. The proposed project would extend Melrose Drive across this gap, in one of three alignments that are under consideration.

The proposed project would extend Melrose Drive approximately 3,000 feet between North Santa Fe Avenue and Spur Avenue and widen approximately 1,900 feet of existing roadway, south of North Santa Fe Avenue. Currently, Melrose Drive terminates at North Santa Fe Avenue and Spur Avenue. The extension would cross unincorporated County land and connect the two termini in the City of Oceanside, allowing access between North Santa Fe Avenue and State Route 76 via Melrose Drive. Three alternative alignments were analyzed equally for a project- level EIR. Alternative B has the least impacts to Guajome Regional Park, but the greatest residential and grading impacts. Alternative C has the greatest impacts to Guajome Regional Park, but the least residential impacts. Alternative A is a compromise between impacts to Guajome Regional Park and residential uses. The County is the responsible agency for parkland, unincorporated County land (RPO), and the grading permit.

This area is rich in prehistory and history, with the establishment of the National Historic Landmark Rancho Guajome Adobe as a major part of the history of the state of California. Native people lived along the San Luis Rey River for thousands of years, leaving behind ample evidence of the richness of their cultures.

As a result of the surveys, an isolated artifact was found within the proposed alignments. The isolate consisted of a piece of gray chert debitage, about two centimeters in length and a centimeter in width. No other cultural resources were identified within the project alignments. However, it should be noted that access was not possible for the entire study area. Houses within the alternative alignments are over 45 years old (built before 1963); this report contains an evaluation of the historical significance of 26 buildings and structures (Appendices A and B provide additional information on the structures). One building at 2283 Glenview Lane, APN 159-080-23, built in 1927, appeared to have the potential to be eligible to the California Register of Historic Resources. It was formally evaluated for eligibility but was determined to have poor integrity. It is recommended not eligible.

Melrose Drive Extension 1 1. Introduction

Figure 1. Project vicinity.

2 Melrose Drive Extension 1. Introduction

Figure 2. Project location.

Melrose Drive Extension 3

2. Project Area Background 2. PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND

This chapter reviews the environmental setting, and the prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic cultural sequence. This is a summary of how pertinent investigations in the general region have contributed to the current constructions of past cultural history. It is not intended to be an exhaustive account of all research conducted in the area.

ENVIRONMENT

The project area consists of low hills dissected by drainages that empty into the San Luis Rey River; many springs, wetlands, and riparian corridors are located in the area. The region is characterized by a Mediterranean semiarid steppe climate, moderated by coastal proximity (Bowman 1973; Hines and Rivers 1991). Precipitation averages 270 mm per year and falls primarily in the winter (from December to April). The Mediterranean climate of the region is typified by broad zones of associated vegetation, with wide transitional zones (or ecotones) between vegetation communities. These modern vegetation associations have been variously classified (e.g., Beauchamp 1986; Oberbauer 1978). The late Holocene appears to have witnessed only minimal climatic change that would have affected the distribution of vegetation communities; hence, there is considerable potential to reconstruct the prehistoric distribution of the various plant communities (Anderson 1996; Gallegos and Kyle 1988; Johnson 1977). Such reconstruction is inhibited, however, by considerable human modifications historically and prehistorically (Bean and Lawton 1976; Winterhouse 1972). Most notable of these is the recent destruction of coastal vegetation communities and the replacement and extinction of native perennial grasses through the introduction of non-native annual grass species.

A series of major plant communities are present within the Rancho Guajome area, including coastal sage scrub, fresh and brackish water marsh, riparian, and grasslands (Munz 1974). Coastal sage scrub plant species in the area include buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia apiana), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), squaw bush (Rhus trilobata), and laurel sumac (Rhus laurina). The freshwater marsh species include cattail (Typha), spike-rush (Eleocharis sp.), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.), while common brackish water marsh plants include pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Willow (Salix sp.), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees are common in the riparian habitat. Most of the riparian vegetation near the park has flourished since cattle grazing was halted in the early 1970s; the corridor downstream from the project area was planted as a result of an impact mitigation project, and has grown substantially in the past decade.

A wide range of small mammals, birds, and reptiles are indigenous faunal resources of the region. Some of the mammals that occur in the area include several species of mice and bats, desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi),

Melrose Drive Extension 5 2. Project Area Background desert wood rat (Neotoma lepida), and coyote (Canis latrans), among others. Waterfowl and ducks also occur in the region.

PREHISTORIC CULTURAL SEQUENCE

Archaeological investigations along the southern California coast have yielded a diverse range of human occupation extending from the early Holocene into the Ethnohistoric period (e.g., Byrd and Raab 2007; Erlandson and Colten 1991; Jones 1991, 1992; Moratto 1984). Within each time segment, prevalent culture historical terms and associated archaeological attributes are distinct, and summarized in the subsequent discussion.

Terminological Framework During the last 70 years, more than a dozen prehistoric cultural sequences have been presented for coastal southern California, and San Diego County in particular (Christenson 1992:Figure 13.1; Moratto 1984:Figures 4.4 and 4.17). The goals of each specific chronological construct have varied considerably, although generally it has been to sequentially divide prehistory based on traits observed in the archaeological assemblages. Scholars have used differing terminological frameworks (not always defined), such as culture, horizon, period, stage, and tradition (Warren et al. 1993). In some, such as the Early and Late periods of Bull (1987:36) or the Early, Middle, and Late periods of King (1981, 1990), the primary goal has been to divide the sequence into chronological periods with interpretively neutral terms. In others, such as Warren (1964, 1968), the framework was simply the backbone for modeling differing ecological adaptations.

The basic culture historical sequence for San Diego County was established by Rogers (1929, 1945), and subsequent scholars have generally refined it by subdividing cultures, collapsing cultures, or renaming the sequence. The most enduring local culture historical terminologies are the sequence coined by Rogers (1945) and a later synthetic treatment by Wallace (1955) that integrates San Diego County with other portions of the southern California coast. In addition, True’s (1966) terminology for late adaptations in the San Luis Rey River environs has continued to have widespread acceptance.

In northern San Diego County, a range of terminological frameworks has been applied to cultural development and prehistoric adaptations. An examination of the culture history sections in recent archaeological reports from northern San Diego County revealed that no single chronological terminology has met with widespread acceptance nor are previous constructs strictly applied. Instead, recent reports often use hybridizations, with three terminologies being used most extensively and recurrently. These include: Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric (e.g., Byrd 1996; Woodman 1996a, 1996b); Early and Late period (e.g., Clevenger et al. 1993; Strudwick 1995); and Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Late Archaic (e.g., Apple and Cleland 1994; Cleland and Pigniolo 1995). Adding further confusion to an already muddled situation, individual scholars synonymously utilize a number of other terms that have been introduced previously along with the above-mentioned labels. These terms include San Dieguito, La Jollan, Pauma, Encinitas, and San Luis Rey (Meighan 1954; Rogers 1939; True 1966; Warren 1964,

6 Melrose Drive Extension 2. Project Area Background 1968). It should be noted that different terminological sequences are generally employed by scholars working further north along the coast. Typically Wallace’s (1955) or Warren’s (1968) sequences are used in Orange County while King’s (1981, 1990) sequence is employed in the Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands areas.

Each of the chronological sequences used in San Diego County has drawbacks and limitations. The most common sequence employs two terms, Paleoindian and Archaic, that have often been employed throughout western North America (Byrd 1996; Woodman 1996a, 1996b), as well as the Late Prehistoric (Wallace 1955). As such, it is a generalized framework with terms that are widely utilized and not specific to San Diego County (Meighan 1959). In contrast, the Early/ Late period terminological framework is specific to San Diego County (Bull 1987). Its simplicity is compelling but provides little in the way of enlightenment into diachronic trends. It is also easy to confuse with King’s (1990) Early/Middle/Late period chronology, which is employed further north along the coast (Moss and Erlandson 1995). Another chronological sequence— Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Late Archaic—also appears to be unique to the local region. The terms Early Archaic and Late Archaic are not commonly employed elsewhere as major temporal periods, particularly since they are synonymous with the terms Archaic and Late Prehistoric used elsewhere. Drawbacks to this terminology include the discontinuance of the term Late Prehistoric, which enjoys widespread use and continued acceptance, and that early Archaic and late Archaic are often descriptive terms used to subdivide the Archaic by other scholars. Thus, the latter two terminological frameworks have the potential to confuse scholars employing other culture historical terms.

This report employs and recommends the use of the terms Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric to structure this review of San Diego County prehistory, with particular reference to the Rancho Guajome area. It is recommended that the use of geographically specific terms for cultural complexes be minimized, such as La Jolla complex for coastal Archaic shell middens, and Pauma complex for inland Archaic sites. Use of such geographically specific terms suggests that there is strong and definitive evidence for distinguishing these two variants within the Archaic.

Human Occupation Prior to 11,500 B.P. 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 suggested to represent very early occupation of the Americas (Owen 1984; Taylor 1991). The most widely accepted model is that humans first entered the western hemisphere between 15,000 B.P. and 12,000 B.P. However, no sites are reliably dated prior to 15,000 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1969; Jelinek 1992; Meltzer 1993).

Paleoindian Period (11,500-8500/7500 B.P.) The Paleoindian period begins with Clovis occupation, a widespread phenomenon in North America. Noted for its distinctive tool kit 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

Melrose Drive Extension 7 2. Project Area Background Paleoindian period in San Diego County is considered to date to the terminal Pleistocene and the early Holocene, from >10,000 B.P. to 8500/7500 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Warren et al. 1993). Although no Clovis habitation sites have been documented in the region, occasional isolated fluted points have been discovered, providing limited evidence for terminal Pleistocene human occupation.

Much has been written about Paleoindian assemblages in southern California, and a variety of terms has been proposed. Rogers, the first to temporally order the archaeological assemblages of the region, introduced and then discarded the terms Scraper-Makers, Malpais, and Playa to label early lithic industries of the region (see Warren 1967 for a comprehensive review). Rogers (1939, 1945) coined the term San Dieguito to refer to the earliest artifact assemblages in San Diego County, and for many it remains a viable Paleoindian cultural complex. Rogers’ (1929) use of the term San Dieguito developed out of pioneering survey work in which he distinguished a suite of lithic scatters situated on the San Dieguito plateau of San Diego County. These sites were initially termed the Scraper-Makers (and considered to postdate Shell-Midden sites situated closer to the coast). Key attributes of these Scraper-Maker sites included patinated scrapers (and the term “San Dieguito” was used to refer to scraper planes), knives, rare crescentic stones (currently referred to as eccentrics), and occasional manos and metates. These sites have typically been situated on terraces and ridge tops, lack subsurface materials and middens, and have been interpreted as evidence of a hunting-focused culture.

During the last 15 years, the relationship between San Dieguito (Paleoindian) and later La Jolla (Archaic) sites has been the subject of considerable debate (Bull 1983, 1987; Gallegos et al. 1987; Moriarty 1969; Warren 1987; Warren et al. 1993). The key issues concern whether San Dieguito sites are chronologically earlier, whether San Dieguito sites lack ground stone artifacts, and whether subsequent Archaic sites have a strong bifacial tool component. A major alternative interpretation considers San Dieguito and La Jollan sites as functional variants of a single adaptive system, with San Dieguito sites representing specialized quarrying or hunting locales (Bull 1987; Gallegos et al. 1987). Such an interpretation fits with recent paleocoastal models that consider the earliest occupation of the western coast (pre-8500 B.P.) not to be focused on big game hunting but rather to represent a more generalized hunting and gathering adaptation (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995).

Archaic Period (8500 B.P. - 1300/800 B.P.) The Archaic period is considered to have extended from 8500 B.P., possibly as early as 9000 B.P., until 1300 B.P./800 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Rogers 1966; Warren et al. 1993). A major distinction has been made between shell midden Archaic sites (near the coast) and Archaic sites lacking shell middens further inland. Coastal Archaic sites (often termed the La Jolla complex) are characterized by shell middens, flaked cobble tools, basin metates, manos, discoidals, and flexed burials, while inland sites in northern San Diego County are often termed the Pauma complex. Alternative terminology includes Wallace’s (1955) Milling Stone horizon and Warren’s (1968) Encinitas tradition. This time period was considered to have differed from the prior San Dieguito adaptation by being more focused on gathering activities that emphasized marine mollusks, fish, and plant resources.

8 Melrose Drive Extension 2. Project Area Background Rogers (1945) proposed that the Paleoindian (San Dieguito) and Archaic (La Jolla) occupations were representative of different populations (also see Warren 1968). Later research, however, considered the potential for transitional coastal sites and cultural continuity (Kaldenberg 1982; Moriarty 1967). As with the Paleoindian period, one view considers the early Archaic and Paleoindian sites to be contemporaneous expressions of a single settlement system (Bull 1987; Gallegos et al. 1987). Recent research at Camp Pendleton has revealed continuity in Archaic occupation of the coastal area from the eighth millennium B.P. into the Late Prehistoric period. These results conflict with expectations of the traditional culture history for the San Diego County area. In this area, the post-4000 B.P. time period is well represented by coastal sites, many of these settlements are large with moderate to thick middens that were occupied for multiple seasons, and shellfish persisted as a viable economic strategy. These results reveal that a varied and complex set of factors were in play, and that Archaic adaptations were both flexible and dynamic.

Inland Archaic adaptations are not as well understood. For example, a series of 25 sites predating the Late Prehistoric in inland northern San Diego County were termed the Pauma complex by True (1958). These sites were set on hills overlooking drainages, and were associated with early to middle Holocene sediments. As a complex, they were considered distinct from coastal Archaic sites given their surficial nature and the lack of shellfish and bone. Given the predominance of grinding stones in the tool assemblages, the economy at these sites was interpreted as oriented toward seed-gathering. True (1958) initially hypothesized that they may have had similarities with San Dieguito (Paleoindian) sites based on the presence of bifaces, crescentics, and projectile points.

Subsequent research by True and colleagues further refined the nature of the Pauma complex. An important new interpretation was that the Pauma complex was not Paleoindian in age, but rather may have some mixing of earlier Paleoindian material remains (True 1980). Many similarities with coastal Archaic adaptations were recognized, but milling stones were more frequent in Pauma complex sites, while scraping and planing tools and hammers/choppers were more common along the coast (True and Beemer 1982). Excavations and radiocarbon dating at the Pankey site (SDI-682) in the Pauma Valley yielded a Pauma occupation level with an inverted basin metate above a burial and low frequencies of shellfish remains (True and Pankey 1985). As a result of this fieldwork, it was hypothesized that the Pauma complex represents an inland, possibly seasonal, expression of the coastal Archaic (La Jollan).

Late Prehistoric Period (1300/800 B.P. - 200 B.P.) The onset of the Late Prehistoric period in San Diego County is generally considered to have occurred between 1300 B.P. and 800 B.P. (Moratto 1984; Rogers 1945; Warren et al. 1993). The timing of this period may vary regionally (potentially earlier in the east and later in the west), and also according to the criteria applied. In general, this period is linked with the ethnohistoric record of local Native American groups. Applications of direct historical analogy to this time period assume a considerable period of stability during the Late Prehistoric period for populations, linguistic groups, and their territorial extent, as documented by Spanish contact through early twentieth-century ethnohistoric accounts.

Melrose Drive Extension 9 2. Project Area Background Given that two different linguistic groups, the Yuman language group speaking Diegueño and the Shoshonean language group speaking Luiseño/Juaneño, inhabited the southern and northern portions, respectively, of San Diego County during the ethnohistoric period, it is not surprising that two Late Prehistoric complexes have been distinguished that have the same broad boundaries. 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).

The 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 (1925:578) 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). However, there is growing evidence for cultural continuity from the Archaic into the late period.

Recent research on the coastal plain of northern San Diego County has documented a range of Late Prehistoric settlement patterns. Along the coast, many sites date to the Late Prehistoric period. These sites were occupied for extended seasons, reveal intensive exploitation of local littoral resources, and have continuity with well-dated late Archaic adaptations in this area. In addition, upland Late Prehistoric settlements at Camp Pendleton have been investigated. These sites are often clustered around boulder outcrops to facilitate bedrock milling, and reveal a complex set of local adaptations that can be considered part of the San Luis Rey complex (Reddy 2000). As a whole, the Late Prehistoric period at Camp Pendleton reveals continuity with contemporaneous settlement northward to Orange County and continued exploitation of coastal resources, particularly shellfish (Moratto 1984).

ETHNOHISTORIC CONTEXT

According to Kroeber (1925:636), Oceanside and Rancho Guajome are within the territory of the ethnohistoric Native American Luiseño cultural group (see also Rivers 1993). This group is a Shoshonean-speaking population that inhabited what is now northern San Diego, southern Orange, and southeastern Riverside counties through the ethnohistoric period into the twenty-first century. They are linguistically and culturally related to the Gabrielino and the Cahuilla, and represent the descendants of local Late Prehistoric populations. They are generally considered to have migrated into the area from the western Great Basin, possibly displacing the prehistoric ancestors of the Yuman-speaking Kumeyaay (Ipai-Tipai) that lived directly to the south.

In California, Spanish explorers first encountered coastal villages of Native Americans in 1769 with the establishment of Mission San Diego de Alcalá. Mission San Juan Capistrano, which initially had jurisdiction over the northern part of San Diego County, was subsequently

10 Melrose Drive Extension 2. Project Area Background established in 1776. Later, Mission San Luis Rey de Francia was founded in 1798. These missions “recruited” coastal Native Americans to use as laborers and to convert them to Catholicism. This had a dramatic effect on traditional cultural practices. Inland Luiseño groups were not as heavily affected by Spanish influence until 1816, when an outpost of the mission was established 20 miles further inland at Pala (Sparkman 1908). At the time of contact, the Luiseño population may have ranged from 5,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals. To the south, the Kumeyaay population was at the same level or perhaps somewhat higher. Along with the introduction of European diseases, missionization greatly reduced their populations. Most villagers, however, continued to maintain many of their aboriginal customs while adopting the agricultural and animal husbandry practices learned from the Spanish.

By the early 1820s, California had come 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 Luiseño and Kumeyaay left the missions and ranchos and returned to their original villages (Cuero 1970). When California became a sovereign state in 1850, the Luiseño and Kumeyaay were heavily recruited as laborers, and experienced even harsher treatment. Conflicts between Native Americans and encroaching Anglos finally led to the establishment of reservations for some villages, such as Pala and Sycuan. Other Mission groups were displaced from their homes, moving to nearby towns or ranches. The reservation system interrupted the social organization and settlement patterns, yet many aspects of the original culture persist today, including certain rituals and religious practices, along with traditional games, songs, and dances.

Territorial distribution of ethnohistoric groups is of critical importance in reconstructing cultural adaptations. The Shoshonean inhabitants of northern San Diego County were called Luiseño by Franciscan friars. They also named the San Luis Rey River and established the Mission San Luis Rey in the heart of Luiseño territory. Luiseño territory encompassed an area from roughly Agua Hedionda on the coast, east to Lake Henshaw, north into Riverside County, and west through San Juan Capistrano to the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Luiseño shared boundaries with the Gabrielino and Serrano to the west and northwest, the Cahuilla from the deserts to the east, the Cupeño to the southeast, and the Kumeyaay to the south. All but the Kumeyaay (Ipai or Northern Diegueño) are linguistically similar to the Luiseño, belonging to the Takic subfamily of Uto-Aztecan (Bean and Shipek 1978).

The diet of the Luiseño included both plant and animal foods. There was considerable seasonality in the relative importance 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; rather, they were only seasonally available. For example, elderberries are available during July and August, chia is available mainly in June, acorns in the fall only, and many grasses are summer and fall resources. Of course, if these resources were stored, they could be consumed throughout the year.

Melrose Drive Extension 11 2. Project Area Background Given the general ethnohistoric accounts of the Luiseño, groups residing along the San Luis Rey River and its tributaries could have utilized several ecological niches varying by altitude. During early and midsummer, subsistence activities likely focused on seed-bearing plants. Grasses would have been available in the coastal terraces, large inland valleys, and open upland settings. Important plant resources such as elderberries, chia, manzanita, and sage were collected extensively during the summer months. Then settlements may have moved to the higher elevations, with aggregation of families into larger groups for acorn harvests during the fall and winter months. Animal exploitation may have been most extensive during the months when plant resources were meager, and supplementary plant foods, including yucca and cactus, were also exploited seasonally as needed. Any coastal settlements could have supplemented these resources with shellfish and marine fish exploitation. The availability of these resources varied during the year (notably for fish) and from year to year (notably for the shellfish Donax gouldii).

HISTORY OF RANCHO GUAJOME LAND GRANT

The Melrose Drive expansion project is located within the historic Rancho Guajome land grant. The word guajome comes from the Luiseño word wakhavumi, which translates as “frog pond.” This region was originally occupied by the Luiseño and their ancestors. Kroeber (1925:Plate 57) showed a village called Wahaumai near present-day Guajome Regional Park. Mission San Luis Rey de Francia was founded in 1798, after Mission San Juan Capistrano and Mission San Diego; by this time, many native peoples were already displaced and native villages had been abandoned. There is no mention of the village of Wahaumai in the baptismal records of these missions (Merriam 1968). The area of Rancho Guajome was originally part of the Mission lands and was used for raising and pasturing cattle and sheep (Engstrand and Ward 1995:251-252). By 1831, Mission San Luis Rey had more Indian neophytes than any other mission, claiming 3,000 (Engelhardt 1921:80). After the secularization of the missions became official in 1834, the Mexican government began carving up the former mission lands into land grants. Governor Pio Pico granted Rancho Guajome in 1845 to the Luiseño brothers Andreas and Jose Manuel, who were neophytes at the mission. Based on earlier surveys, the 1858 plat map, shows that Rancho Guajome was confirmed to Andres Soma and Catarina (the U.S. government confirmed earlier Spanish and Mexican land grant maps to establish a clear chain of title; often, the plat maps were confirmed many years after the original land grants).

Soon after they obtained the rancho from the Mexican government, the brothers sold the 2,219.4-acre ranch to Abel Stearns for $550.00. In 1851, Stearns gave the rancho to his sister- in-law, Ysidora Bandini, as a wedding present upon her marriage to Cave Johnson Couts (Engstrand and Scharf 1974). While a lieutenant in the U.S. Army, Couts had been stationed at the Mission San Luis Rey, and his sketches of the ruined buildings are among the early historical records of the area. In his diary, he noted that the Guajome area had good and abundant water, with springs running into a creek.

Couts began construction that same year on a magnificent adobe ranch house, located southeast of the project area. He purchased the original building materials from the mission, and those

12 Melrose Drive Extension 2. Project Area Background materials were incorporated into the adobe home (Hector 1999). In 1970, the ranch house was designated as a National Historic Landmark by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Couts family owned Rancho Guajome for 122 years, selling off portions as needed. In 1973, the ranch house with 566 acres of the original land grant was purchased by the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, and the County has restored the residence and the outlying structures (chapel, kitchen, and wells/reservoirs). Rancho Guajome Adobe had many outbuildings and corrals that no longer exist. A 1928 aerial photograph on file with the County of San Diego shows sheds and corrals extending out to what is now North Santa Fe Avenue, which provided carriage and wagon access to the rear of the adobe complex. No outbuildings or corrals are shown on the eastern side of the road.

As Couts noted in his diary, many springs run through Rancho Guajome to the San Luis Rey River. The 1901 30-minute San Luis Rey, California, USGS topographic quadrangle shows a marsh or swampy area where Guajome Marsh and Guajome Lake are now located. Two creeks merge in this location; Spring Creek, which originates east of the park, and Guajome Creek, which begins as a spring southeast of North Santa Fe Avenue near Darwin Drive. Guajome Creek enters the park near the entry road for the Antique Gas and Steam Engine Museum, passes next to the adobe ranch house, and crosses North Santa Fe Avenue again near the current terminus of Melrose Drive. It then enters Upper Guajome Pond and continues downstream to Guajome Marsh and the San Luis Rey River. The creation of Guajome Lake and the channeling of the creek feeding into Guajome Marsh were attempts to control flooding and create pastures for livestock. Upper Guajome Pond was created through the construction of an earthen dam, and was also an attempt to control water flow.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE VICINITY AND AT GUAJOME REGIONAL PARK

The inland San Luis Rey River area near the project area has been the focus of several archaeological surveys, the most extensive of which were associated with the construction of State Route 76 to replace Mission Avenue. A series of surveys accomplished by Caltrans District 11 personnel have resulted in important information about cultural resources in this part of the county. Although the Caltrans surveys were conducted along the Mission Avenue corridor, amendments to the State Route 76 project required consideration of improvements to Guajome Lake Road (Rosen 1991). No cultural resources were found during this additional survey project.

Two prehistoric archaeological sites were located near the intersection of North Santa Fe Road and Mission Avenue (SDI-1268 and SDI-8088). Both of these have been destroyed by housing development in the area (Rosen 1991). No other cultural resources were noted by Caltrans near the Melrose Drive project area.

The historic Rancho Guajomita pillars were features located north of Mission Avenue and associated with a ranch affiliated with Rancho Guajome. Only the two pillars, constructed of local cobbles, remain; no buildings or other features exist. Because the pillars would have been

Melrose Drive Extension 13 2. Project Area Background destroyed by construction of State Route 76 and were identified by the local community as having value, they were moved into Guajome Regional Park and remain near the upper day use ranger station.

The park itself was surveyed by Gary Fink in 1973 and 1974. Five prehistoric archaeological sites were found at that time. Site testing was done in 1976 (Fink 1978:45). These sites are described below.

SDM-W-479/SDI-8241 Fink proposed that this site is the village of Wahaumai, or Guajome. It is a large, complex habitation area with pictograph rock art (Fink 1979). Further testing by Gallegos (1991) supported the earlier suggestion that this site is significant. The site is preserved within the regional park.

SDM-W-480 This site is located near Rancho Guajome Adobe, on a small knoll. The site has been impacted by construction of a water reservoir. It represents a campsite, with bedrock milling features, artifacts, and a midden deposit.

SDM-W-481 Located west of SDM-W-480 and northwest of Rancho Guajome Adobe, this site also contains bedrock milling features and a scatter of flakes and tools. No midden deposit was noted.

SDM-W-482 This site consists of bedrock milling features. One isolated artifact was observed. Subsurface testing indicated that no midden deposit is present. SDM-W-482 is located on a ridge northwest of Upper Guajome Pond.

SDM-W-568 Site SDM-W-568 is adjacent to Upper Guajome Pond. It consists of a single bedrock milling feature. At the time of Fink’s observations, a mano was located near the milling feature.

Fink proposed that three of the sites (SDM-W-479, -480, and -481) may have been occupied during historic times. All are close to Rancho Guajome Adobe and all contain artifacts associated with Late Prehistoric occupation. The remaining two sites (SDM-W-482 and -568) would have been on the edge of a riparian area prior to the construction of Upper Guajome Pond. These sites contain only milling features, so it is not possible to assign a date of use or occupation, but they may be specialized activity areas associated with the village of Guajome.

A sewer line survey was conducted near Spring Creek, near the northern end of the proposed project area (Gallegos and Pigniolo 1987). Two isolated artifacts were found as a result of that survey, a core and a mano. Neither was found near the proposed alignments. The north end of

14 Melrose Drive Extension 2. Project Area Background the project area as it crosses Spring Creek was surveyed by Brown (1992). No sites were found within the project area as a result of this survey. The southern end of the proposed project area was surveyed by Kyle et al. (1987). This survey included the Melrose Drive extension.

Melrose Drive Extension 15

3. Records Search Results 3. RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS

Records searches were requested and obtained from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University on September 27, 2002, and October 17, 2007, and from the San Diego Museum of Man on October 25, 2007. Table 1 provides a summary of the results of these records searches.

Table 1. Cultural Resources Within the One-Mile Records Search Radius of the Melrose Drive Extension Project Area

Trinomial (CA-)/ Museum of Man No. Date Recorded Description SDI-4991/SDM-W-1302 1977 Surface scatter of lithic artifacts SDI-4992 1977 Two areas of surface lithic artifacts SDI-5345 1978 Bedrock milling features and ground stone artifacts SDI-5992/SDM-W-3931 1987 Guajome Ranch House historic site (NHL) SDI-6004/SDM-W-1938 1978 Scatter of artifacts with possible subsurface deposit SDI-6088/SDM-W-1918A 1978 Bedrock milling features and artifacts SDI-6089/SDM-W-1918B 1978 Lithic artifact scatter SDI-6090/SDM-W-1918C 1978 Bedrock milling features and artifacts SDI-6091/SDM-W-1919 2001 Bedrock milling features with no midden deposits SDI-6092/SDM-W-564 1978 Bedrock milling features SDI-6093/SDM-W-565 1978 Bedrock milling features and flaked stone artifacts SDI-8241/SDM-W-479 1973 Large village site with rock art and midden SDI-8242/SDM-W-480 1973 Milling features and artifacts SDI-8872/SDM-W-568 1974 Milling features SDI-11630/SDM-W-4313 1989 Shell scatter SDI-12634/SDM-W-5028 1992 Lithic artifact scatter SDI-12736/SDM-W-5107A 1992 Low density artifact scatter SDI-12737 1992 Farm equipment and road grading machines SDI-13182/SDM-W-481 1973 Bedrock milling and historic refuse scatter SDI-13183/SDM-W-482 1973 Bedrock milling features SDI-13740 2003 Small midden deposit with flaked and ground stone SDI-13741 2003 artifacts presentSmall scatter of mostly surface artifacts SDI-13742 2003 Surface scatter of lithic artifacts SDI-13743 2003 Surface shell, no subsurface SDI-13744 1994 Shell and lithic artifact scatter SDI-14046 1995 Bedrock milling feature SDI-14047 1995 Camp site with bedrock milling features and artifacts SDI-14730/SDM-W-7114 1998 Historic building foundations SDI-15889 2005 Small camp site with lithic artifacts and shell SDI-16499 2003 Single bedrock milling feature P37-01485/SDM-W-5086 1990 Isolated metavolcanic core SDM-W-3919 1987 Isolated bifacial sandstone mano fragment SDM-W-3920 1987 Isolated metavolcanic core SDM-W-3934 1987 Bedrock outcrop with three slicks

Melrose Drive Extension 17 3. Records Search Results The SCIC records search showed 34 sites recorded within one mile of the project, with two previously recorded sites (SDI-8872 and SDI-12736) within the project area. The Museum of Man records search included three sites not shown on the SCIC records search. One of these, SDM-W-3934 (see Table 1), was recorded within the project area. This site was not listed with the SCIC and does not have a primary number or trinomial. It was recorded in 1987 as an isolated bedrock outcrop with three slicks on a graded knoll next to Melrose Drive. At the time it was recorded, it was noted that no artifacts or soil discoloration indicating midden were present. This area was inspected during one of the field surveys for this project, and no milling features were observed.

A Sacred Lands File search was conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 19, 2007. No recorded Sacred Lands were identified within or near the project area, although the absence of recorded locations does not necessarily indicate that no areas of traditional importance exist within or near the project area. On November 6, 2007, follow-up letters were sent to the Native American individuals and groups on the contact list provided by the NAHC that have affiliation to the general project area that might have knowledge pertinent to the cultural resources in the area. Copies of the letters sent to the NAHC and to the tribes and individuals are provided in Appendix A.

The Pala Band of Mission Indians sent a response on November 13, 2007. The response indicated that although the project area is not within Pala’s traditional area, the tribe would like to be informed about the progress of the project. The Pala Band also requested Native American monitoring during all surveys and ground-disturbing activities.

The San Luis Rey Band contacted Dr. Hector to request Native American participation in the field surveys. Cami Mojado participated in the updated survey conducted in August 2008.

18 Melrose Drive Extension 4. Survey Methods and Results 4. SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS

SURVEY METHODS

An intensive archaeological field survey was conducted on October 16, 2002, by Dr. Susan Hector, ASM Principal Investigator, and Drew Pallette, ASM Associate Archaeologist. All undeveloped open land within the area proposed for possible development was surveyed by walking closely spaced transects of ten meters or less in width. The following areas could not be surveyed:

1. The open land west of the intersection of Melrose Drive and Spur Avenue, along Spring Creek, was fenced and could not be accessed. 2. Areas under cultivation along Guajome Lake Road were not surveyed; these lands have been graded and planted with ornamental vegetation. 3. Land under and around existing buildings and structures was not surveyed because it was inaccessible and visibility was restricted. 4. Owner permission was not granted for much of the project area so there was no access for the surveys.

Subsequent to the original survey, the project area was expanded to include areas not covered in the 2002 study. As a result, ASM conducted updated surveys in 2008 and 2009. An updated intensive field survey was conducted on August 27, 2008, by ASM Associate Archaeologists Michelle Dalope and James Daniels for areas within the study area. Native American monitor Cami Mojado participated in the survey. All accessible undeveloped open land within the area proposed for possible development was surveyed in 10-meter intervals (Figure 3). Much of the area south of North Santa Fe Avenue west of Melrose Drive has been covered with landscaping, pavement, and structures. Mature landscaping prevented the survey team from observing the ground surface within the parcels.

As the inaccessible areas are all within residential or commercial developments, none are likely to contain archaeological resources; thus, the limitations of the 2002 and 2008 surveys are considered minimal. However, it is always possible that cultural resources will be revealed during clearing and grubbing, and that buried sites will be identified during grading.

On December 7, 2009, ASM Associate Archaeologist Chad Willis conducted an additional intensive field survey of a 500-foot-long survey corridor along North Santa Fe Avenue (County Route S14; Figure 4). As part of this project, this area has been designated as one possible location for a proposed trail to Rancho Guajome Adobe that will run adjacent to the south side of North Santa Fe Avenue, with a spur of the trail extending perpendicular from the road in a southerly direction for about 200 feet. This multipurpose, approximately 10-foot-wide trail would extend from North Santa Fe Avenue to the existing driveway access at the North Coast Church. It would be maintained within the existing five-foot right-of-way with an additional easement up to 13 feet. Retaining walls would also be constructed along the northern edge of

Melrose Drive Extension 19 4. Survey Methods and Results the easement and along two landings proposed for equestrian use. Much of this area has been altered from construction of the road, although the grassy areas south of the road do not appear to have been heavily impacted by development. The ground visibility at the time of the survey was limited due to dense grasses and storm water runoff.

In addition to a survey of open land, buildings and structures within the three alignments were assessed to determine their potential for historical significance. Dr. Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin conducted field surveys in September 2008 to identify the potential for historic structures. The results of her survey and research are presented below.

SURVEY RESULTS

ASM’s inability to obtain access was a major constraint during this inventory. ASM personnel were able to survey within Guajome Regional Park, and park staff accompanied the survey team during the fieldwork. Visibility was about 0 to 25 percent throughout the project area due primarily to dense vegetation. Table 2 presents a summary of field conditions during the 2008 survey.

Prehistoric Cultural Resources Three previously recorded prehistoric sites (SDM-W-3934, SDI-8872, and SDI-12736) were identified within or adjacent to the project area during the records searches. Only one of these sites (SDI-8872) was relocated by ASM personnel during the 2008 survey. Also during the 2008 survey, an isolated piece of gray chert debitage 2 cm in length and 1 cm in width was found next to Melrose Drive within proximity to site SDM-W-3934. No other prehistoric cultural resources were found within the proposed project area during the 2002, 2008, or 2009 field surveys. The following provides brief descriptions of SDM-W-3934, SDI-8872, and SDI- 12736 as noted in the site records.

SDM-W-3934. This site is located within parcels 159-112-29 and 159-112-53. It was described in the site record as a bedrock milling feature with three slicks. The site could not be relocated during the 2008 survey because permission was not granted for access to this parcel. The area is highly disturbed, however, so it is likely that the site has been destroyed.

SDI-8872. Located southeast of the Upper Guajome Pond in Guajome Regional Park, SDI- 8872 is also known as SDM-W-568. The site was first recorded in 1974 by Gary Fink as consisting of a basin, slick, and possible mortar. It is located on parcel 15906038, which is owned by the County of San Diego. The site is adjacent to the project area and was relocated during the 2008 survey. At that time, ASM personnel noted that the milling features appeared to be exfoliating and were in poor condition. If restoration of the pond will be included as part of the project, this area should be avoided.

20 Melrose Drive Extension 4. Survey Methods and Results

Figure 3. Road alignments and study area.

Melrose Drive Extension 21

4. Survey Methods and Results

Figure 4. Conceptual trail plan along North Santa Fe Avenue and the proposed Melrose Drive extension.

Melrose Drive Extension 23 4. Survey Methods and Results Table 2. Results of 2008 Survey for Parcels within the Study Area.

Parcel Visibility Comments 15741213 Poor over most of parcel Developed and planted 15741214 Unknown Unable to access 15741226 Unknown Unable to access 15784015 Unknown Unable to access 15784016 Unknown Unable to access 15785015 Unknown Unable to access 15785016 Unknown Unable to access 15906038 Poor No artifacts found; SDI-8872 is outside the project area 15908001 Poor Residential development 15908003 Unknown Unable to access 15908004 Poor Residential development 15908005 Unknown Unable to access 15908006 Unknown Unable to access 15908007 Unknown Unable to access 15908008 Unknown Unable to access 15908017 Unknown Unable to access 15908018 Unknown Unable to access 15908023 Unknown Unable to access 15908024 Unknown Unable to access 15908027 Unknown Unable to access 15908028 Unknown Unable to access 15908029 Unknown Unable to access 15908030 Unknown Unable to access 15908031 Unknown Unable to access 15908032 Unknown Unable to access 15908033 Unknown Unable to access 15909025 Unknown Unable to access 15909026 Poor Property has been developed; unable to relocate SDI-12736 15911229 Poor Property has been developed, unable to relocate SDM-W-3934 15911230 Unknown Unable to access 15911235 Unknown Unable to access 15911236 Unknown Unable to access 15911242 Poor No artifacts found in the project survey area 15911247 Unknown Unable to access 15911252 Unknown Unable to access 15911253 Unknown Unable to access 15918023 Unknown Unable to access 15918024 Unknown Unable to access 15918034 Unknown Unable to access 15921017 Poor Developed and planted 15921021 Unknown Unable to access 15921022 Unknown Unable to access 15921024 Unknown Unable to access 15921025 Unknown Unable to access 15921027 Unknown Unable to access 15921030 Unknown Unable to access

24 Melrose Drive Extension 4. Survey Methods and Results

Parcel Visibility Comments 15921032 Unknown Unable to access 15921033 Unknown Unable to access 15921034 Unknown Unable to access 15921035 Unknown Unable to access 15921036 Unknown Unable to access 15921037 Unknown Unable to access 15921038 Poor Paved 15921039 Unknown Unable to access 15921040 Poor Developed and planted. 15926123 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15926124 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15926125 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15926126 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15926127 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15926128 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15937204 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15937208 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15937209 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15937223 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15937224 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15937225 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15939010 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15939011 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15939012 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15939023 Fair Unable to access, fenced 15940001 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940002 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940003 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940004 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940005 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940006 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940007 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940021 Unknown Unable to access 15940101 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940102 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940103 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940104 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940105 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940106 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940107 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940108 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940109 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found 15940118 Poor Area has been developed and landscaped; no artifacts found

Melrose Drive Extension 25 4. Survey Methods and Results SDI-12736. This site (also known as SDM-W-5107A) is located on parcel 15909026, which contains a church property. The site was recorded in 1992 by Strudwick and McIntosh, who described it as a low density artifact scatter on a knoll. ASM personnel were unable to relocate the site in 2008 as the result of dense vegetation. It is possible that the site was destroyed during development of the church property.

Historic Cultural Resources One previously recorded historic site (SDI-12737) was identified within the project area during the records searches. SDI-12737 was recorded by Strudwick and McIntosh in 1992, who described it as a collection of farm and road-grading equipment. The site is located on parcel 15909026, on the same church property as SDI-12736 (see above). ASM personnel were unable to relocate this site in 2008. The machinery was likely removed prior to construction of the church.

Neither the archival research nor the field surveys revealed any potentially significant historic resources within the proposed project area. As stated above, there is no evidence to suggest that Cave Couts extended his construction at Rancho Guajome into the area east of North Santa Fe Avenue. No rancho structures or features have been found in or near the project area.

Historic map research was conducted at the San Diego Historical Society archives to determine when the lakes and ponds were created. The 1901 San Luis Rey, California, 30-minute USGS topographic quadrangle was based on surveys conducted between 1891 and 1898. This map does not show Guajome Lake or the upper pond. The entire creek is shown as a marshy area. The 1942 Oceanside, California, 15–minute USGS topographic quadrangle is the first to show Guajome Lake. The surveys for this quadrangle were done between 1938 and 1942. There is no upper pond on the 1942 map. The 1948 San Luis Rey, California, 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle is the earliest map to show the upper pond (another pond is also shown, in the area now developed as Guajome Lake Estates; that pond no longer exists). Therefore, the upper pond was constructed between 1942 and 1948.

Historic Building Survey A historic building survey was completed for the Melrose Drive Extension Project for the purpose of assessing the potential eligibility of properties over 45 years of age to the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources (Local Register) and under the San Diego County Resources Protection Ordinance (RPO). This survey included archival research to determine the date of construction of the buildings and field survey to document the buildings and assess historical integrity. The results of this survey provide a preliminary assessment of eligibility to the CRHR.

Methodology. County Assessor parcel information was downloaded for all parcels within the study area from Realquest.com. This provided information on the date of construction of buildings within the project parcels. Table 3 provides the results of this data search.

26 Melrose Drive Extension 4. Survey Methods and Results Table 3. Dates of Construction for Buildings within Alignments A-C and the Study Area.

Parcel APN Address Owner Address Date Use Alignment Notes 15741213 2701 Guajome Lake Rd. 1029 W 223rd St. 1955 Greenhouses C 15741214 2555 Guajome Lake Rd. 2555 Guajome Lake Rd. 1958 Poultry A, B, C 15741226 2827 Guajome Lake Rd. 2827 Guajome Lake Rd. 1979 Residence A, B, C, SA 15906038 Public Agency C 15908001 2355 Old Colony Rd. 1958 Residence A, B 15908003 2340 Glenview Ln. 2340 Glenview Ln. 1949 Residence SA 15908004 2332 Glenview Ln. 2332 Glenview Ln. 1956 Residence B, SA House in SA 15908005 2345 Old Colony Rd. 1973 Residence A, B 15908006 2331 Old Colony Rd. 1953 Residence A, B 15908007 2315 Old Colony Rd. 1952/6 Residence A, B, C 15908008 2319 Old Colony Rd. 1953 Residence A, B 15908017 2355 Old Colony Rd. B Vacant 15908018 2365 Old Colony Rd. 1968 Residence B, SA 15908023 2283 Glenview Ln. 2283 Glenview Ln. 1927/32 Residence B, SA 15908024 2511 N Santa Fe Ave. 2511 N Santa Fe Ave. Vacant B, SA 15908027 2511 N Santa Fe Ave. 2511 N Santa Fe Ave. 1953 Residence A, B, C, SA 15908028 2310 Glenview Ln. 1972 Residence B 15908029 2314 Glenview Ln. 1985 Residence A, B 15908030 2465 N Santa Fe 1052 Chestnut Ave. Vacant SA 15908031 2260 Glenview Ln. 1945/49 Residence A, B, C 15908032 2274 Glenview Ln. 1946 Residence B SA 15908033 2504 Guajome Lake Rd. 2504 Guajome Lake Rd. 1955 Residence SA 15909025 2511 N Santa Fe Ave. Vacant SA 15909026 1132 N Melrose Dr. Vacant SA 15911225 2020 Willowbrook Dr. 1978 Residence SA 15911229 2188 Willowbrook Dr. 1978 Residence A, B, C, SA 15911230 2016 Willowbrook Dr 2016 Willowbrook Dr. 1935 Residence A, B, C, SA 15911235 2224 Willowbrook Dr. 2000 Residence A, B, C, SA 15911242 Public Agency A, B, C, SA 15911247 Public Agency A, B, C, SA 15911252 2220 Willowbrook Dr. Residence SA Outside APE 15911253 2218 Willowbrook Dr. Residence A, B. C, SA Outside APE 15918023 2431 Majella Rd. 2431 Majella Rd. 1956 Residence SA 15918024 2421 Majella Rd. 2425 Majella Rd. 1951 Residence SA 15918034 2460 Majella Rd. P.O. Box 1422 1950 Residence SA Shed/Greenhouse 15921017 2586 Majella Rd. 1947 Residence SA only in APE House outside 15921021 676 Osborne St. Residence SA study area 15921022 2527 Guajome Lake Rd. 2527 Guajome Lake Rd. Multi-family SA No building info 15921024 2523 Guajome Lake Rd. 2527 Guajome Lake Rd. 1962 Residence SA 15921024 2727 Guajome Lake Rd. 1962 Residence SA 15921025 2501 Guajome Lake Rd. 2501 Guajome Lake Rd. 1973 Residence SA 15921026 2465 Guajome Lake Rd. 2465 Guajome Lake Rd. 1959 Residence SA 15921027 2474 Guajome Lake Rd. 2474 Guajome Lake Rd. 1988 Residence SA 15921030 2502 Guajome Lake Rd. 2502 Guajome Lake Rd. 1960 Residence SA 15921030 2502 Guajome Lake Rd. 1960 Residence SA 15921032 2360 Glenview Ln. 2360 Glenview Ln. 1953 Duplex SA 15921033 2414 Glenview Ln. 14128 Hindry Ave. 1950 Residence SA 15921034 2405 Old Colony Rd. 2405 Old Colony Rd. Vacant SA 15921035 2406 Old Colony Rd. 2405 Old Colony Rd. 1965 Residence B House in SA 15921036 2476 Guajome Lake Rd. 2476 Guajome Lake Rd. 1940 Residence SA

Melrose Drive Extension 27 4. Survey Methods and Results

Parcel APN Address Owner Address Date Use Alignment Notes 15921037 2502 Guajome Lake Rd. 2502 Guajome Lake Rd. Vacant SA Same address as 15921038 2535 Guajome Lake Rd. A, B, C, SA 159-210-40 15921039 15921040 2529 Guajome Lake Rd. 1962 Residence SA 15921040 2535 Guajome Lake Rd. 1946 Poultry SA Outside APE 15926123 1198 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15926124 1196 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15926125 1194 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15926126 1192 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15926127 1190 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15926128 1188 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15937203 5010 Sunbright Ct. ~2003 Residence SA 15937204 5004 Sunbright Ct. ~2003 Residence SA 15937208 3938 Flowerwood Ln. ~2003 Residence SA 15937209 3280 Canyon View Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15937223 1904 Sagewood Dr. 1904 Sagewood Dr. 1994 Residence A, B, C, SA 15937224 1908 Sagewood Dr. ~1994 Residence SA 15937225 1912 Sagewood Dr. ~1994 Residence SA 15939008 1168 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15939009 1172 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15939010 1176 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15939011 1180 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15939012 1184 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15939023 2351 Darwin Dr. 1977 Residence SA 15940001 1164 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940002 1160 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA C/O Americas 15940003 ~2003 Residence SA Servicing Co. 15940004 1152 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940005 3541 Cameo Dr., #108 ~2003 Residence SA 15940006 1144 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940007 1140 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940021 Public Agency SA 15940101 1136 Sunbright Dr. 2003 Residence SA 15940102 1132 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940103 1128 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940104 1124 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940105 1120 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940106 1116 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940107 1112 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940108 1108 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA 15940109 1104 Sunbright Dr. ~2003 Residence SA

15940118 1056 Darwin Dr. ~2003 Residence SA a SA = Study Area

A field survey of buildings within Alignments A, B, and C was carried out on December 7, 2007, by ASM Architectural Historian Dr. Barry Stiefel. This survey documented ten houses that were over 45 years old and therefore were potentially eligible to the CRHR and Local Register. A supplemental survey was completed in September 2009 to include an expanded study area (see Figure 3). This survey, completed by ASM Principal Investigator Dr. Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin on September 4 and 16, 2008, documented an additional 16 houses.

28 Melrose Drive Extension 4. Survey Methods and Results The buildings were inspected from the road as permission to enter private parcels had not been provided by the majority of the property owners. Consequently, visibility was poor in some cases and it was not possible to document all elevations of the buildings. In cases where the house was not visible from the roadway, permission to enter was obtained from the property owner prior to photo documentation. Visibility was sufficient to determine the architectural style of the building and to assess historical integrity.

Results. Twenty-six houses within the project area (Study Area and Alternative Alignments) were constructed prior to 1963. Table 4 provides the APN numbers, addresses, dates of construction, architectural style, and eligibility assessment of each of the buildings in the project area that are greater than 45 years old. Photographs of the buildings are provided in Appendix B.

Most of the buildings in the project area were constructed after World War II in the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles. The Minimal Traditional style was developed during the 1930s economic Depression, and was loosely based on the vernacular Tudor style that preceded it. Houses in this style have dominant facades, often with one front-facing gable, moderately sloping roofs, eaves that do not have a wide overhang, large chimneys in some cases, and little if any detailing. Houses in this style were built in large numbers after World War II and they dominate large tract developments of the time. They are generally small, single story, modest buildings (McAlester and McAlester 2000:478).

The Ranch style originated in California in the mid-1930s and by the 1950s it was the dominant style throughout the country. It is characterized by a sprawling design, long asymmetrical façade, low-pitched roof with moderate to wide overhanging eaves, and the use of ribbon and picture windows. The front façade often features a mixture of cladding, including brick, stone and wood and some traditional features such as shutters, ironwork, and wooden porch supports. Private patios are often located to the rear of the house (McAlester and McAlester 2000:478).

Eligibility to the CRHR under Criterion C requires that a building “Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values [California Environmental Quality Act, as amended 1998, Section 15064.5.a3].”

The houses in the project area are modest examples of the Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles, and do not represent outstanding examples of the styles and would therefore not qualify for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C. Many of the buildings have also been extensively modified over the years as new windows and doors were inserted and additions constructed. Based on an assessment of the architecture and integrity, none of the buildings in the project area are recommended as eligible to the CRHR. However, the preliminary assessment of eligibility indicated that one house within the project area, at 2283 Glenview Lane, appeared to have potential for eligibility to the CRHR and the Local Register. This house was built in 1927 with some modifications in 1932, according to County Assessor records. Unlike the majority of buildings in the project area, it was constructed in a combination of Spanish Revival and Pueblo styles. The details of this house are provided below.

Melrose Drive Extension 29 4. Survey Methods and Results Table 4. Eligibility Assessment for Houses Over 45 Years Old in Alignments A-C and the Study Area.

Parcel Owner Address Date Use Alignmenta Style Recommendations Formal evaluation to NRHP 15908023 2283 Glenview Ln. 1927/32 Residence B, SA Spanish Revival/ Pueblo style and CRHP: Not eligible Formal evaluation if impacts 15911230 2016 Willowbrook Dr 1935 Residence A, B, C, SA House outside study area anticipated 15921036 2476 Guajome Lake Rd. 1940 Residence SA Minimal Traditional, poor integrity Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908031 2260 Glenview Ln. 1945/49 Residence A, B, C Minimal Traditional Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908032 2274 Glenview Ln. 1946 Residence B, SA Minimal Traditional, poor integrity Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15921040 2535 Guajome Lake Rd. 1946 Poultry SA Spanish Revival Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15921017 2586 Majella Rd. 1947 Residence SA Shed/greenhouse only in study area Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908003 2340 Glenview Ln. 1949 Residence SA Rustic Ranch style Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15918034 2460 Guajome Lake Road 1950 Residence SA Ranch style Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15921033 2414 Glenview Ln. 1950 Residence SA Minimal Traditional Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15918024 2425 Majella Rd. 1951 Residence SA Minimal Traditional Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908007 2315 Old Colony Rd. 1952/6 Residence A, B, C Ranch style, wooden siding Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908006 2331 Old Colony Rd. 1953 Residence A, B Duplex. Flat roof, block structure Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP Ranch Style, picture windows, poor 15908008 2319 Old Colony Rd. 1953 Residence A, B Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP integrity 15908027 2511 N Santa Fe Ave. 1953 Residence A, B, C, SA Minimal Traditional Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15921032 2360 Glenview Ln. 1953 Duplex SA Minimal Traditional Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15741213 2701 Guajome Lake Rd. 1955 Greenhouses C Vernacular, wood siding Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908033 2504 Guajome Lake Rd. 1955 Residence SA Ranch Style Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15908004 2332 Glenview Ln. 1956 Residence B, SA Ranch Style, remodeled Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15918023 2431 Majella Rd. 1956 Residence SA Ranch Style, stucco Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP No access house in SA, greenhouses in 15741214 2555 Guajome Lake Rd. 1958 Poultry A, B, C, SA Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP A, B, C 15908001 2355 Old Colony Rd. 1958 Residence A, B Ranch style Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15921026 2465 Guajome Lake Rd. 1959 Residence SA Minimal Traditional Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP 15921030 2502 Guajome Lake Rd. 1960 Residence SA Ranch style Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP Two houses: Ranch and Minimal 15921024 2527 Guajome Lake Rd. 1962 Residence SA Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP Traditional, one office Two houses: Minimal Traditional, poor 15921039 2529 Guajome Lake Rd. 1962 Residence SA Not eligible to CRHR or NRHP integrity, remodeled

a SA = Study Area

30 Melrose Drive Extension 4. Survey Methods and Results Evaluation of 2283 Glenview Lane. In April 2009, Dr. Ní Ghabhláin completed a formal evaluation of the eligibility of 2283 Glenview Lane (Figure 5). This evaluation included field inspection and documentation of the building, a title search to identify individuals and families associated with the house, and archival research conducted at the San Diego Historical Society and at the Vista Historical Society, and an oral interview with the current owner Peggy Tilleard, and Jean Bice, daughter-in-law of Clair Bice, the original owner.

The house at 2283 Glenview Lane is a one-story bungalow over a basement. According to County Assessor records, it was constructed in 1927. It was built in a combination of Spanish Revival and Pueblo styles. Character-defining features of the building include stucco exterior cladding, a red tile roof over one wing, a flat roof with a parapet over a second wing, and a large window with a segmental arch in the front elevation.

This 1,500-square-foot bungalow contains eight rooms and three bedrooms. It has a complex rectangular ground plan due to several additions. The earliest wing of the house is adjacent to Glenview Lane. This wing features a garage/basement over which are the main living rooms. The south façade features a French door with a large view window above it that is multi-paned and has a segmental arch. The roof over this wing of the house is a red tile shed roof. This appears to have been inserted at some time when the roof was raised and triangular windows inserted below it. The remaining windows in this wing of the house are all wood framed and include: a triplet of double hung windows; two triple multi-paned casement windows; two twin single-hung windows with five fixed panes in the upper frame, and a narrow louvered window.

To the east of the original wing is a wing that appears to have been added to the house early in its history. This wing has a flat roof with a parapet. It features wood-framed double-hung windows and wood-framed casement windows. A bathroom appears to have been added to the north wall of this wing at some point. A third wing extends to the west of the house. This features a wall of five large fixed windows in wooden frames on the north façade and a large fixed view window on the south side. A wooden deck is located on two sides of this wing. Finally, a wing was added to the south side of the building possibly as late as the 1970s. According to the current owner, Peggy Tilleard, this residence contains two units from a motel that were purchased by Mr. Bice and added to the house to provide more bedroom space. This wing features two large aluminum sliding windows and a glazed door on the east side. Part of this wing is supported on a red brick pillar.

A title search was conducted by Becky Kiely of Chain Tech, Inc. This search confirmed that the house was constructed by Clair and Mildred Bice in 1927. It remained in the Bice family until 1976 when it was purchased by Adrian L. Donica. Mr. Donica sold it in 1988 to Geoffrey and Peggy Tilleard and it has remained the property of the Tilleard family since then. According to Jean Bice, daughter-in-law of Clair Bice, the Bices moved to Vista from Bishop. Clair Bice had five children with his first wife, Mildred (Billie, Leland, Donald, Glen, and Eva Marie) and another two with his second wife, Mirla. Clair Bice owned Bice Electric in Vista for many years and had always worked as an electrician as far as Jean Bice could remember. Jean Bice’s family moved to Vista in 1935. She remembers that there were few houses in the

Melrose Drive Extension 31 4. Survey Methods and Results vicinity of Glenview Lane at that time. Peggy Tilleard was told by Adrian Donica, the previous owner, that the 1927 house was moved at some point up the hill to its present location from its original location nearer North Santa Fe Avenue.

Figure 5. South façade of 2283 Glenview Lane.

Given the many alterations and additions to the house over the years, the structure at 2283 Glenview Lane has poor integrity. It appears that three major structural additions were made to the house. One of these was likely added early in the history of the house, possibly in the 1930s. The second main addition was likely added in the 1950s, and the final addition to the main façade was likely added in the 1960s or 1970s. The final addition compromises the Spanish Revival/Pueblo appearance of the house.

Integrity is the authenticity of the physical identity of a historical resource as evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during its period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Given its poor integrity, the house at 2283 Glenview Lane is recommended as not eligible to the CRHR and the NRHP.

32 Melrose Drive Extension 5. Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations 5. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Under CEQA, environmental impacts to historic resources that meet the California Register criteria must be evaluated during the project approval process. Both the California Register and the National Register include criteria for evaluation of eligible resources. These are described below.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

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 that is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (Division I, Public Resources Code, Section 5021.1[b]).

Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the California Register 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 California Register is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The California Register includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places, 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 California Register 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 California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) consisting of the following:

Melrose Drive Extension 33 5. Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations (1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution tot he 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 (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.

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

If federal funds or permits are involved in a project, the National Register criteria are relevant and used to analyze adverse effects from project implementation. The National Register was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (1966).

Criteria for evaluation. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, 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

(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 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.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

The San Diego County Local Register’s purpose is to develop and maintain, “an authoritative guide to be used by state agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the County’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Sites, places, or objects, which are eligible to the National Register or California Register, are automatically included in the San Diego County Local Register.

34 Melrose Drive Extension 5. Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE (RPO)

The majority of development in the County is subject to RPO. This ordinance requires that cultural resources be evaluated as part of the County’s discretionary environmental review process and if any resources are determined significant under RPO, they must be preserved. The RPO defines "Significant Prehistoric or Historic Sites" as follows:

1. Any prehistoric or historic district, site, interrelated collection of features or artifacts, building, structure, or object either: (a) Formally determined eligible or listed in the National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper of the National Register; or (b) To which the Historic Resource (“H” Designator) Special Area Regulations have been applied; or 2. One-of-a-kind, locally unique, or regionally unique cultural resources which contain a significant volume and range of data and materials; and 3. Any location of past or current sacred religious or ceremonial observances which is either: (a) Protected under Public Law 95-341, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act or Public Resources Code Section 5097.9, such as burial(s), pictographs, petroglyphs, solstice observatory sites, sacred shrines, religious ground figures or, (b) Other formally designated and recognized sites which are of ritual, ceremonial, or sacred value to any prehistoric or historic ethnic group.

Historic Resources A preliminary assessment of eligibility of 26 buildings within the project area concluded that all but two of the buildings were modest Vernacular, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch-style private residences that were constructed between 1940 and 1963. None of these buildings was of sufficient architectural distinction to be potentially eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 1 and to the NRHP under Criterion C. Oral interviews with local residents and archival research at the Vista Historical Society failed to identify any association between these buildings and people or events important to the local history or the history of the region. They are therefore recommended not eligible to the CRHR, the NRHR, or the Local Register.

The house located at 2016 Willowbrook Drive is a Vernacular wood-frame house constructed in 1935. It is currently outside the study area and is unlikely to be impacted by the project. If impacts are anticipated, this resource should be evaluated for eligibility to the CRHR, NRHP, and the Local Register.

One building within the study area, 2283 Glenview Lane, did appear to have potential for eligibility to the CRHR and NRHP at a local level based on its architecture. A formal evaluation to determine its eligibility to the CRHR and NRHP was completed. While this building was constructed in 1927 and was originally constructed in the Spanish Revival/ Pueblo style, it was found to have poor integrity as several substantial additions had been made to it over the years. It

Melrose Drive Extension 35 5. Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations is therefore recommended not eligible to the CRHR, the NRHP, or the Local Register. It is also recommended not significant under the County’s RPO as it has not been determined eligible to the NRHP and is not a unique resource either regionally or locally.

Prehistoric Resources No prehistoric cultural resources were identified within the area proposed for development during the field surveys. However, four previously recorded sites (SDM-W-3934, SDI-8872, SDI-12736, and SDI-12737) were updated during the 2008 survey. Three of these sites (SDM- W-3934, SDI-12736, and SDI-12737) could not be relocated at that time. ASM did not have owner permission for access to the parcel containing SDM-W-3934, but it is presumed to have been destroyed due to extensive development. This site appears to be within an area that will be graded for at least part of the Melrose Drive alignments. When and if owner permission is obtained for access to this parcel, a field check should be conducted to determine the condition and integrity of the site, and whether it may be eligible for the California or National Register. Limited subsurface testing may be necessary to make this determination. Because the area has been disturbed by grading, it is likely that the site has been destroyed.

The parcel where SDI-12736 was documented has been developed and visibility was poor. As such, it is likely that the site has been destroyed. On the other hand, while the location where the site was recorded is outside the direct impact area of the alignments, it is within the broader study area. If this area is to be impacted during project development, limited testing should be conducted to confirm the presence or absence of SDI-12736. Such testing may require the removal of vegetation. If the site is relocated during the recommended testing, and assuming that it meets the criteria for eligibility to the California or National Registers and cannot be avoided during development of Melrose Drive, a data recovery program will be necessary. This program would focus on the recovery of an adequate sample of the cultural materials contained within the site to mitigate adverse impacts from the project.

If restoration of Upper Guajome Pond is one of the mitigation measures for this project, site SDI-8872 must be avoided in project design and implementation. The site will not be adversely impacted by any of the alignments.

Much of the project area has been developed and could not be evaluated in the field for archaeological resources. Portions have been developed as residences, commercial enterprises, and landscaped areas. It is recommended that a supplemental survey be completed after demolition and removal of these structures. Although it is unlikely that archaeological sites will be found intact underneath existing development, if archaeological resources are found, they will have to be evaluated for integrity and significance. If significant, a data recovery program will be necessary.

Although unlikely, it is possible that accidental archaeological discoveries will be made during grading. If this occurs, the City of Oceanside should be notified immediately so that an evaluation of the significance of the find can take place.

36 Melrose Drive Extension 5. Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations The discovery of Native American remains is always a possibility. Should human remains be identified during project development, the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98 must be followed. This law requires notification of the County Medical Examiner and Native American Heritage Commission. The law encourages culturally sensitive treatment of Native American remains, and requires meaningful discussions and agreements concerning treatment of the remains at the earliest possible time. The intent is to foster the preservation and avoidance of human remains during development.

Melrose Drive Extension 37

References REFERENCES

Anderson, R. Scott 1996 Pollen Analysis from Las Flores Creek, Camp Pendleton Marine Base, San Diego County. In Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Horno Canyon, Camp Pendleton, California, edited by Brian F. Byrd. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Encinitas, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, California.

Apple, R. M., and J. Cleland 1994 Archaeological Survey of Sierra I Impact Area and Foxtrot Firebreak, Camp Pendleton. KEA Environmental, San Diego. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Bean, Lowell J., and Harry W. Lawton 1976 Some Explanations for the Rise of Cultural Complexity in Native California with Comments on Proto-Agriculture and Agriculture. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by L. J. Bean and T. C. Blackburn, pp.7-30. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beauchamp, R. Mitchel 1986 A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City, California.

Bowman, Roy H. 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Brown, Joan C. 1992 Archaeological Testing and Significance Assessment of a Small Prehistoric Site Located in Oceanside. RMW Paleo Associates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

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.

Melrose Drive Extension 39 References Byrd, Brian F. 1996 Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Horno Canyon, Camp Pendleton, California. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Encinitas, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, California.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab 2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-227. AltaMira Press, New York.

Christenson, Lynne E. 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.

Cleland, James H., and Andrew R. Pigniolo 1995 Draft Cultural Resource Inventory for the Sewage Effluent Compliance Project Lower Santa Margarita Basin Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. KEA Environmental, Inc., San Diego. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Clevenger, Joyce, Andrew Pigniolo, and Kathleen Crawford 1993 Phase I Historic Inventory, Marine Crops Base Camp Pendleton. MCON Project P-527, San Onofre Area Sewage Effluent Compliance. Ogden Environmental, San Diego, California. Ms. on file, Camp Pendleton.

Cuero, Delfina 1970 The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero, A Diegueno Indian, As Told to Florence C. Shipek. Malki Museum Press, Morongo Indian Reservation.

Engelhardt, Fr. Zephyrin 1921 San Luis Rey Mission. The James H. Barry Company, San Francisco.

Engstrand, Iris, and Thomas Scharf 1974 Rancho Guajome: A California Legacy Preserved. The Journal of San Diego History 20(1):1-14.

Engstrand, Iris, and Mary Ward 1995 Rancho Guajome: An Architectural Legacy Preserved. The Journal of San Diego History 41(4):250-283.

Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten 1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M.

40 Melrose Drive Extension References Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 1-10. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Fink, Gary 1978 The Archaeological Resources of Guajome Regional Park, Oceanside, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 14(4):45-61. 1979 Some Rock Art Sites in San Diego County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(2):61-69.

Gallegos, Dennis R. 1991 Cultural Resource Boundary Test for Guajome Site SD–8241/W-479, Vista, California. Gallegos and Associates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Gallegos, Dennis R., and Carolyn Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. WESTEC Services Inc., San Diego. Submitted to Department of the Navy.

Gallegos, Dennis, and Andrew Pigniolo 1987 Cultural Resource Survey of the Osborne OV6 Trunk Sewer Line, Vista, California. WESTEC Services, Inc. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

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.

Haynes, C. Vance 1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709-715.

Hector, Susan M. 1999 Mission Masonry at Rancho Guajome Adobe. The Journal of San Diego History 45(4):246-259.

Hines, Philip, and Betty Rivers 1991 A Re-evaluation of the Prehistoric Archaeological Sites within the Pendleton Coast District. In The Cultural Resources of the Pendleton Coast District. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University (MS# 1122426).

Jelinek, Arthur J. 1992 Perspectives from the Old World on the Habitation of the New. American Antiquity 57(2):345-347.

Melrose Drive Extension 41 References Johnson, Donald L. 1977 The Late Quaternary Climate of Coastal California: Evidence for an Ice Age Refugium. Quaternary Research 8:154-179.

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 T. Jones, pp. 1-38. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. 10.

Kaldenberg, Russell L. 1982 Rancho Park North: A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in Coastal Southern California. Imperial Valley College Museum Society Occasional Paper No. 6.

King, Chester 1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 1990 The Evolution of Chumash Society. Garland, New York.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kyle, Carolyn, Andrew Pigniolo, and Dennis Gallegos 1987 Cultural Resources of the Omori Property and the Melrose Extension, Oceanside. WESTEC Services, Inc. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester 2000 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227. 1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity 24:289-305.

Meltzer, David J. 1993 Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Evolutionary Anthropology 1(5):157-168.

42 Melrose Drive Extension References Merriam, C. Hart 1968 Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No. 74. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, Berkeley.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Moriarty, James R. 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. 1967 Transitional Pre-desert Phase in San Diego County, California. Science 155: 553-556. 1969 The San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships. Anthropological Journal of Canada 7(3):2-18.

Moss, Madonna L., and Jon M. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Pacific Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-46.

Munz, Philip A. 1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Oberbauer, Thomas 1978 Vegetation Map of San Diego County. Ms. on file, County of San Diego.

Owen, Roger C. 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 Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer, pp. 517-563. Alan R. Liss, New York.

Reddy, Seetha N. 2000 Paleoethnobotanical Investigations at the Late Holocene Highland Sites on Camp Pendleton. In Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, Southern California, edited by Seetha Reddy. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Rivers, Betty 1993 The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historic Background. In Cultural Resources of the Pendleton Coast District. Report on file, Cultural Heritage Section, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

Melrose Drive Extension 43 References Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist 31(3):454- 467. 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(1): 167-198. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.

Rosen, Martin D. 1991 Historic Property Survey Report, State Route 76 Expressway, Oceanside, California. Caltrans District 11. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. Berkeley University Press.

Strudwick, Ivan 1995 Results of Archaeological Significance Testing at Sites CA-SDI-10156, CA-SDI- 10157 and CA-SDI-I-91, MCAS Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Submitted to Burns and Roe Pacific Company, Cypress, California.

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.

True, Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23: 255-263. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 2:1-39.

True, D. L., and Eleanor Beemer 1982 Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:233-261.

True, D. L., and Rosemary Pankey 1985 Radiocarbon Dates for the Pauma Complex Component at the Pankey Site, Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7:240-244.

44 Melrose Drive Extension References Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. South- western Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.

Warren, Claude N. 1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex - A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(4):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. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 73-85. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.

Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer 1993 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In Historic Properties Background Study for the City of San Diego Clean Water Program. Brian F. Mooney Associates for Clean Water Program for Greater San Diego.

Winterhouse, John 1972 The Historical Geography of San Diego - Some Aspects of Landscape Change Prior to 1850. Master’s thesis, Department of Geography, San Diego State University.

Woodman, Craig 1996a CA-SDI-811 Preliminary Results of Extended Archaeological Survey, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Science Applications International Corporation. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996b CA-SDI-812/H Preliminary Results of Test Excavation and a Determination of NRHP Eligibility. Science Applications International Corporation. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Melrose Drive Extension 45

Appendices

APPENDICES

Melrose Drive Extension 47

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Native American Consultation

Melrose Drive Extension

November 6, 2007

Mr. Christobal C. Devers Chairperson, Pauma and Yuima P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Devers:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Mr. Charles Devers Chair, Cultural Committee Pauma and Yuima Reservation P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Devers:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Ms. Carmen Mojado Co-Chair, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92081

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Ms. Mojado:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Mr. Henry Contreras Most Likely Descendant San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1763 Chapulin Lane Fallbrook, CA 92028

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Contreras:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Ms. Shasta Gaughen Assistant Director Cupa Cultural Center 35008 Pala-Temecula Road PMB Box 445 Pala, CA 92059

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Ms. Gaughen:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Mr. Mark Mojado Cultural Resources San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92081

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Mojado:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

October 12, 2007

Dave Singleton California Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Via fax: (916) 657-5390

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Singleton,

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center in San Diego County, as well as a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you have registered any cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, or areas of heritage sensitivity within this proposed project area.

Our investigation will include direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. We request that you send along a listing of the appropriate individuals to make contact with related to this project. Please submit your response to me at our Carlsbad office, listed above. Feel free to call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

Your Requested Information: County – San Diego County USGS Quad – San Luis Rey Township – 11S Range – 4W Section – Unsectioned rancho lands

November 6, 2007

Mr. Russell Romo Chairman, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 12064 Old Pomerado Road Poway, CA 92064

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Romo:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Mr. Rob Roy, Environmental Director La Jolla Band of Mission Indians 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA 92061

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Roy:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Ms. Angela Veltrano Rincon Culture Committee P.O. Box 68 Valley Center, CA 92082

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Ms. Veltrano:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

November 6, 2007

Mel Vernon San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1044 North Ivy Street Escondido, CA 92026

Re: Melrose Drive Extension, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Vernon:

ASM Affiliates is conducting an archaeological study of the Melrose Drive Extension, located in San Diego County, California. This study is being undertaken in accordance with CEQA. The area is on the San Luis Rey 7.5 minute quad in Range 4W, Township 11S. ASM has conducted a records search with the South Coastal Information Center and with the San Diego Museum of Man and has conducted a pedestrian survey of the project parcel. I am writing to inquire if you know of any cultural resources and/or traditional cultural properties within this proposed project area.

Our investigation includes direct consultation with local tribal entities in a manner that ensures complete confidentiality. Please call, write, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any concerns or questions.

Sincerely,

Michael Garnsey Associate Archaeologist

Attachment: map of project parcel

Appendices

APPENDIX B

House Photos

Melrose Drive Extension

Appendix B

2260 Glenview Lane

2274 Glenview Lane

Melrose Drive Extension B-1 Appendix B

2283 Glenview Lane (1)

2283 Glenview Lane (2)

B-2 Melrose Drive Extension Appendix B

2332 Glenview Lane

2340 Glenview Lane

Melrose Drive Extension B-3 Appendix B

2360 Glenview Lane

2414 Glenview Lane

B-4 Melrose Drive Extension Appendix B

2460 Guajome Lake Road

2465 Guajome Lake Road

Melrose Drive Extension B-5 Appendix B

2476 Guajome Lake Road

2502 Guajome Lake Road

B-6 Melrose Drive Extension Appendix B

2504 Guajome Lake Road

2527 Guajome Lake Road (1)

Melrose Drive Extension B-7 Appendix B

2527 Guajome Lake Road (2)

2527 Guajome Lake Road (3)

B-8 Melrose Drive Extension Appendix B

2529 Guajome Lake Road (1)

2529 Guajome Lake Road (2)

Melrose Drive Extension B-9 Appendix B

2535 Guajome Lake Road

2555 Guajome Lake Road

B-10 Melrose Drive Extension Appendix B

2425 Majella Road

2431 Majella Road

Melrose Drive Extension B-11 Appendix B

2511 North Santa Fe Avenue

2315 Old Colony Road

B-12 Melrose Drive Extension Appendix B

2319 Old Colony Road

2331-2335 Old Colony Road

Melrose Drive Extension B-13 Appendix B

2355 Old Colony Road

B-14 Melrose Drive Extension Appendices

APPENDIX C

DPR Form

Melrose Drive Extension

State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #: P-37-030077 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: 2283 Glenview Lane

P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: † Not for Publication : Unrestricted *a. County: San Diego and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: San Luis Rey Date: 1997 T 11S ; R 4W ; unsectioned Rancho Guajome B.M. c. Address: 2283 Glenview Lane City: Vista Zip: 92084-1620 d. UTM: Zone: 11 ; 475970 mE/ 3677575 mN (G.P.S.) NAD 27 e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: APN # 159-080-23-00

*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)

2283 Glenview Lane is a single-family house that exhibits a hybrid of Spanish Colonial and Pueblo Revival architectural styles and is presently painted pink. Observed character-defining features included the stucco-clad exterior walls, a red tile roof over the central portion (Spanish), a flat roof with parapeted wall over the wing portion (Pueblo), and an arched window on the front elevation. The overall exterior condition of the house also appeared to be good.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *P4. Resources Present: :Building †Structure †Object †Site †District †Element of District †Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)

*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: :Historic †Prehistoric †Both

*P7. Owner and Address: Peggy Tilleard 2283 Glenview Lane Vista CA 92084-1620

*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2034 Corte del Nogal, Carlsbad, CA 92011

*P9. Date Recorded: April 28, 2009 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Evaluation

*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Susan Hector, Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, Michelle Dalope (2009) Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Melrose Drive Extension Project, Oceanside, California

*Attachments: †NONE †Location Map †Sketch Map †Continuation Sheet :Building, Structure, and Object Record †Archaeological Record †District Record †Linear Feature Record †Milling Station Record †Rock Art Record †Artifact Record †Photograph Record † Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-37-030077 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 3 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)

B1. Historic Name: 2283 Glenview Lane B2. Common Name: 2283 Glenview Lane B3. Original Use: residental B4. Present Use: residental *B5. Architectural Style: Hybrid of Spanish Colonial and Pueblo Revival *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Built in 1927 with known alterations in 1932. Specific changes made in 1932 are not known.

*B7. Moved? :No †Yes †Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: architecture Area: Spanish Colonial and Pueblo Revival Period of Significance: 1927-1932 Property Type: residental Applicable Criteria: Criterion 3 of the California Register (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)

2238 Glenview Lane has poor integrity given the many alterations and additions to the house over the years. It appears that three major structural additions were made to the house. One of these was likely added early in the history of the house, possibly in the 1930s. The second main addition was likely added in the 1950s, and the final addition to the main façade was likely added in the 1960s or 1970s. The final addition compromises the Spanish Revival/Pueblo appearance of the house. It is therefore recommended not eligible to the CRHR, the NRHP, and the Local Register. It is also recommended not significant under the County’s RPO as it has not been determined eligible to the NRHP and is not a unique resource either regionally or locally

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)

*B12. References: Chain Tech, Inc. 2007 Chain of Title from 1896 to Present, [APN] 159-080-23 Report. Prepared for ASM Affiliates, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

RealQuest.com 2007 2283 Glenview Lane Vista CA 92084-1620 Property Detail Report, Prepared for ASM Affiliates, Inc., Pasadena, CA. (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) B13. Remarks:

*B14. Evaluator: ASM Affiliates, Inc.

*Date of Evaluation: December 20, 2007

(This space reserved for official comments.)

DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-37-030077 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 3 of 4 *Resource Name or #: 2283 Glenview Lane

*Map Name: San Luis Rey 7.5 USGS Quadrangle *Scale: *Date of Map: 1997

DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ______DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ______CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______

Page 4 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2283 Glenview Lane Recorded by: Date: April 28, 2009 „ Continuation Update

This 1,500-square foot bungalow contains eight rooms and three bedrooms. It has a complex rectangular ground plan due to several additions. The earliest wing of the house is adjacent to Glenview Lane. This wing features a garage/basement over which are the main living rooms. The south façade features a French door with a large view window above it that is multi-paned and has a segmental arch. The roof over this wing of the house is a red tile shed roof. This appears to have been inserted at some time when the roof was raised and triangular windows inserted below it. The remaining windows in this wing of the house are all wood framed and include: a triplet of double hung windows; two triple multi-paned casement windows; two twin single-hung windows with five fixed panes in the upper frame, and a narrow louvered window. To the east of the original wing is a wing that appears to have been added to the house early in its history. This wing has a flat roof with a parapet. It features wood-framed double-hung windows and wood-framed casement windows. A bathroom appears to have been added to the north wall of this wing at some point. A third wing extends to the west of the house. This features a wall of five large fixed windows in wooden frames on the north façade and a large fixed view window on the south side. A wooden deck is located on two sides of this wing. Finally, a wing was added to the south side of the building possibly as late as the 1970s. According to the current owner Peggy Tilleard this contains two units from a motel that were purchased by Mr. Bice and added to the house to provide more bedroom space. This wing features two large aluminum sliding windows and a glazed door on the east side. Part of this wing is supported on a red brick pillar.

A chain of title search was completed by Becky Kiely of Chain Tech Inc. This search confirmed that the house was constructed by Clair and Mildred Bice in 1927. It remained in the Bice family until 1976 when it was purchased by Adrian L. Donica. Mr. Donica sold it in 1988 to Geoffrey and Peggy Tilleard and it has remained the property of the Tilleard family since then. According to Jean Bice, daughter-in-law of Clair Bice the Bices moved to Vista from Bishop. Clair Bice had five children with his first wife Mildred (Billie, Leland, Donald, Glen and Eva Marie) and another two with his second wife Mirla. Clair Bice owned Bice Electric in Vista for many years and had always worked as an electrician as far as Jean Bice could remember. Jean Bice’s family moved to Vista in 1935. She remembers that there were few houses in the vicinity of Glenview Lane at that time. The current owner Peggy Tilleard was told by Adrian Donica, the previous owner, that the 1927 house was moved at some point up the hill to its present location from its original location nearer North Santa Fe Avenue.

DPR 523L * Required Information