2.5_Chapter 2.5 - Cultural ResourcesSection 2.5
Cultural Resources
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-1
May 2013
2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section presents an assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources associated with
implementation of the proposed Espola Road Improvement Project. The following text is
summarized from Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRER; Affinis Environmental Services
[Affinis] 2003a) and Negative Archaeological Survey Report (ASR; Affinis 2003b) prepared for
this Project by Affinis (2003, as amended in 2010). The documents are located within
Appendix D of this EIR.
Because the City anticipates use of federal funds for the Project, cultural resources technical
evaluations were completed subject to federal, as well as City and state, environmental review
requirements. Cultural resources technical reports prepared for the Project followed the very
stringent federal requirements identified under Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and its
regulations as promulgated in 36 CFR 800. These studies were carried out to identify any
historic resources or archaeological sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). Eligibility of an historic property to the NRHP applies equally to the
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).
Area of Potential Effect (APE) maps depicting the limits of archaeological survey and historic
structures APE are contained in Appendix D. Initial fieldwork was conducted between
October 2002 and March 2003; focused checks were completed in September 2007 of the staging
area location and September 2009 for additional structures review.
The archaeological (sub-surface) survey area was defined as 200 feet on each side of centerline
of existing Espola Road, and also included drainage easements, utility relocation, and initially
proposed potential staging areas identified elsewhere in this EIR. The study area for structures
generally was defined as the complete property within all parcels touching the existing roadway
within the Project area. (The full parcel was identified as the appropriate study area because
structures are closely associated with the land upon which they sit. For example, it is possible
that the surrounding yard/property could constitute a contributing visual element to a structure’s
nature and/or might contain subsurface and currently not-visible elements associated with the
property, such as old trash pits or privies.)
Structures constructed prior to 1963 were fully evaluated for their potential eligibility to the
NRHP (the remainder of project-area properties were all built in or after 1968). Within the
historic structures APE, structures that appeared on the San Diego County 1928 Tax Factor
Aerial Photographs and on early U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Maps for the area
(Aerial Photograph 1928; USGS 1902, 1930, 1952) or were known (documented) to have been
built prior to 1963 were addressed in the HRER; Building, Structure and Object Records (BSOs)
and Primary Records were completed for these resources.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-2
May 2013
2.5.1 Affected Environment
Regulatory Setting
Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, sets forth national policy and
procedures regarding historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures and
objects included in or eligible for the NRHP. In order to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP,
a building, structure or site must be important within an historical context and meet certain other
criteria. According to the National Park Service:
The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it
is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns,
themes, or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is
understood and its meaning made clear (1991:7).
The National Park Service has defined three main categories of historic contexts: local, state and
national. A local historical context “represents an aspect of history of a town, city, county,
cultural area, or region, or any portion thereof” (National Park Service 1991:9). A state
historical context represents “an aspect of history of the state as a whole” (National Park Service
1991:9). Properties important within a national context represent “an aspect of history of the
United States as a whole” (National Park Service 1991:10).
In order to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a property must be demonstrated to be significant
under one or more of the criteria enumerated below (National Park Service 1991:12-21).
Virtually identical criteria have been codified into the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5
[c][3][A, B, C and D]).
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity,
i.e., the ability of a property to convey its importance. The integrity of a property is conveyed
through its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:
(a) its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history;
(b) its association with the lives of persons significant in our past;
(c) its ability to embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual character;
or
(d) because it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory of
history.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-3
May 2013
A project is considered to have an effect on an historic property when it may alter characteristics
of the property (including location, setting or use) that may qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP
(36 CFR 800.5[1]).
State
California Environmental Quality Act
For the purposes of CEQA, a significant historic resource is one that qualifies for the CRHR or is
listed in a local historic register or deemed significant in an historical resource survey, as
provided under Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resource Code. A resource that is not listed in
or is not determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, is not included in a local register of
historic resources or is not deemed significant in an historical resource survey may nonetheless
be deemed significant by a CEQA lead agency.
As indicated above, the California criteria (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) for the
registration of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources on the CRHR are
nearly identical to those for the NRHP. Furthermore, CEQA Section 21083.2(g) defines the
criteria for determining the significance of archaeological resources. These criteria include
definitions for a “unique” resource, based on its:
Containing information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
Having a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example
of its type.
Being directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.
Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed
on the CRHR, as are State Historical Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes
properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource
surveys.
Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq.
State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and
protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes
procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during
construction of a project; and designates the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American
Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to
deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in
the CRHR.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-4
May 2013
Public Resources Code Section 65560 and 65562 et seq.
This regulation is relevant because it is anticipated that mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat
associated with the Project (see Section 5.4) may require open space set aside in perpetuity.
State law mandates actions required for land designated or proposed to be designated as open
space with cultural resources concerns. It requires that a cultural place must be protected;
establishes a contact list of California Native American Tribes created by the NAHC specifically
for this purpose; and establishes a protocol for the initiation of consultation by the City in which
the cultural place is located with the appropriate Native American tribe(s), for the purposes of:
(1) determining the level of confidentiality required to protect the cultural place and
(2) developing treatment with appropriate dignity of the cultural place in any corresponding open
space management plan (if such one exists).1
Cultural Setting
The Native American culture group that inhabited this portion of San Diego County was called
Diegueño by the Spanish, after the Mission San Diego de Alcala, located in San Diego’s Mission
Valley. This culture group is generally known as Kumeyaay; the ethnographic names Ipai and
Tipai are sometimes used to differentiate two regional Kumeyaay groups. The Late Prehistoric
and ethnohistoric village of Paguai was located in relative proximity to the Espola Road study
area, as discussed below.
Record searches and literature reviews were conducted at the South Coastal Information Center
at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man to identify prior
archaeological investigations within a one-half-mile radius of the Project alignment. The results
of the record searches indicate that although 17 cultural resource sites have been recorded within
a one-half mile radius of the study area, no cultural resource sites are known from the immediate
vicinity of the roadway. The most frequently recorded site type (eight sites) is “milling station,”
with bedrock milling features (slicks, basins or mortars) and, in some instances, a few artifacts.
An additional site was described as a processing site with bedrock milling features, artifacts, and
midden soil. Five lithic processing sites or flaking stations were recorded. One resource appears
to represent a camp or habitation location, and a portion of the ethnographic village of Paguai is
located within one-half mile of the study area. One site consists of two loci of historic debris.
About one-half mile west of the current Project area, Rogers recorded SDM-W-213 (now
CA-SDI-4606), which he considered to be the ethnographic village of Paguai, in the early 1920s.
Kroeber’s (1976) map of native sites in Southern California shows a village of “Pauwai.”
McKee gave the following description of the area:
Historic records give no direct evidence of when the Indians abandoned the area but Poway
(Paguai) is listed as a Rancheria of San Diego Mission in the mission records (Englehardt
1920:350), and Rancho Paguay (Poway) was granted to Rosario Aguilar by Governor Juan B.
Alvarado in 1840. There is no record that he ever occupied the grant but real estate records from
1 An appropriate tribe is one that has been identified on the NAHC contact list and that has, pursuant to
Government Code Section 65092, requested notice of public hearing from the local government in advance of that
jurisdiction’s initiation of consultation.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-5
May 2013
the San Diego Union of Dec. 25, 1874 show that at least some of it was still in the possession of
his heirs (Davidson 1953). The first recorded date for European settlement was 1859 when
Philip Crosthwaite took up residence two miles south of the location of Poway I [archaeological
site CA-SDI-4606]. Indians resided in the valley at least into the land boom of the 1880s. A
Rancheria, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Poway I was reported as late as 1889
(Kear 1965:45) [McKee 1970:14].
The Mexican Period ranchos of San Bernardo and Peñasquitos covered areas adjacent to Poway
Valley. Actual settlement of the area began in the late 19th century as a dispersed agricultural
community. Development of the present City of Poway largely is a result of the post-World
War II population boom that has engulfed southern California.
In 1870 Castanos Paine, owner of Paine’s Rancho, a stage stop for travel from San Diego to
northern San Diego County, applied for and won appointment as Poway’s first postmaster. The
main social life of the community at this time was the community church and the Templer’s
Hall. Agriculture, beekeeping and dairy ranching were the main occupations of the area’s
settlers. Peaches, Muscat grapes, raisins, hay, alfalfa and tobacco were major crops. By 1882,
Poway had 800 residents (Rancho Magazine 1987, San Diego Union 1879:1-3).
During the early 20th century, settlement in the area declined. By 1954 only 300 residents
remained, and only about 10 of these families were descended from early pioneers (Ramona
Sentinel 1977).
In the early 1950s, the area consisted of rural farms. A description in 1955 noted:
Poway today is a settlement rather than a town, for it covers a wide area, with no
centralized district. The post office…is near the center of the Valley. There are
several stores scattered through the area, real estate offices, poultry and turkey
ranches, a number of good dairies, and many fruit and vegetable plantings some
covering large acreages. The settlement boasts an active Chamber of Commerce,
Soil Conservation District, and Water District, has a small newspaper, several
churches, and a fine school. During the last few years the modest homes of the older
settlers have been improved, and many new expensive modern dwellings erected.
The biggest excitement at Poway just now concerns the development of nearly a
thousand acres of potential avocado land (Southern California Rancher 1955).
During the closing years of the 1950s the area began to experience radical change. Improvements
to Highway 395 following World War II and the availability of Colorado River Water in 1954
brought the establishment of a modern suburb. Following formation of the Poway Municipal
Water District in 1954, farms were broken up and subdivided, resulting in agricultural decline
(Ramona Sentinel 1977). One of the first housing tracts consisted of 3,000 dwellings on
1,500 acres by Berlin Construction Company (San Diego Union 1957). An article in 1957 stated:
According to a report just issued by Mrs. Marvel Taunt, the efficient post mistress
of Poway, the little inland settlement has now reached a population of 1,564
persons, a gain of 311 since the last postal census was taken in November 1956.”
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-6
May 2013
The writer further stated that with Colorado River water “available throughout the
valley” hundreds were finding Poway “a delightful place to live, while they work
in the airplane factories in San Diego (Southern California Rancher 1957).
The next 30 years saw accelerated growth caused by Poway’s proximity to San Diego’s major
employment centers, and its rural-residential nature, in which families could raise horses, while
retaining a bedroom community environment. By 1960, the valley’s population had grown to
5,365. Ten years later it stood at 14,000. The community was “…dotted with residential tracts.
It has new shopping centers, new schools, new streets, and a new traffic signal (its second).
Among the residents are many Navy families assigned to near-by Miramar Naval Air Station.”
In 1980 Poway incorporated as a city of 33,236 residents. By 1987 the area’s population was
estimated at over 39,000 (Rancho Magazine 1987). The rural atmosphere that had attracted so
many to the valley had been transformed by suburban expansion.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
Two residences were located just beyond the archaeological study area on the 1930 USGS 15’
La Jolla quadrangle, the 1952 USGS 7.5’ Poway Valley quadrangle and a 1928 aerial photograph
on file at the County of San Diego Cartographic Services. These two residences are located
about 250 feet east of Espola Road between El Topo Drive and Golden Sunset Lane. The
structures are no longer present.
One archaeological site had been previously recorded approximately 250 feet west of the
roadway, outside the current study area. No archaeological resources were encountered during
survey of the Espola Road study area, including in the vicinity of the older structures noted
above. The knoll on which the archaeological site had been mapped has been developed, and the
site has been destroyed. No cultural resources were found at the 2.3-acre staging area.
Historic Structures
Architectural resources within the proposed Project area consist of residential buildings
constructed as part of the post-World War II subdivision development in Poway. A total of 54
structures were examined during the historic structures study. A total of 18 structures were built
prior to 1963 and are therefore at least 50 years old. These properties (Table 2.5-1, Properties
Constructed Prior to 1963) were assessed using individual BSOs, as noted above. None of the
structures appears to meet the criteria for National Register of Historic Places or the California
Register of Historic Resources eligibility. The oldest house, which was constructed in 1940, has
been extensively altered so that its current style and building techniques exemplify post-World
War II tract house construction methods. None of the structures is associated with specific
historic events or individuals.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-7
May 2013
Table 2.5-1
PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1963
Address Parcel Year Built
14611 Espola Road 321-241-08 1956
14627 Espola Road 321-241-07 1958
14643 Espola Road 321-241-06 1958
14661 Espola Road 321-241-05 1958
14679 Espola Road 321-241-04 1958
14711 Espola Road 321-241-02 1958
14802 Espola Road 321-020-41 1960
14845 Espola Road 321-210-31 1956
14911 Espola Road 321-210-34 1940
14937 Espola Road 321-210-33 1957
15016 Espola Road 321-011-18 1954
15109 Espola Road 321-011-24 1958
15159 Espola Road 321-011-15 1962
15239 Espola Road 321-012-54 1959
15360 Espola Road 321-012-50 1960
15060 Espola Road 321-011-41 1958
15040 Espola Road 321-011-06 1958
14218 Highland Valley Road 321-012-55 1959
The remaining structures in the study area were built in 1968 or thereafter. All of the evaluated
structures also exemplify the post-World War II construction methods prevalent throughout the
study area and City as a whole.
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reviews projects with regard to potential impacts
on historic or prehistoric archaeological sites listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP.
Submittal of the draft HPSR to the SHPO was made on September 16, 2003. Following
additional coordination regarding Project-proposed drainage improvements (and the associated
potential for impacts to unknown buried resources), concurrence from SHPO regarding the non-
eligibility of the structures within the APE in the original submittal and approval of the negative
ASR was received on May 19, 2004 (Appendix D). SHPO concurrence on evaluation of
structures built between 1957 and 1962 was received on October 11, 2010.
2.5.2 Thresholds of Significance
The Project would result in significant impacts to cultural resources if it would:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-8
May 2013
2.5.3 Impacts
As noted above, a project is considered to have an effect on an historic property when it may
alter characteristics of the property (including location, setting or use) that may qualify it for
inclusion in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.5[1]).
Permanent Impacts
No archaeological resources were found during record searches or current survey within the
APE. Due to the presence of alluvial and colluvial soils within the Project area between Del
Poniente Road and a small distance northerly, however, there is a potential for unknown
subsurface archaeological resources and/or human remains to be present, and impacted during
Project construction. The Project could result in significant permanent impacts to archaeological
resources and/or human remains, if such items are encountered during grading activities.
No historic structures were found to qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places or the California Register of Historic Resources. Although 18 properties are over
50 years old, none comprises an outstanding example of this architectural type or is associated
with specific significant historical events. Accordingly, the Project would not result in
significant permanent impacts to historic structures. More detailed descriptions are provided in
Appendix D.
Temporary Impacts
As no historic structures were identified, no temporary impacts to historical structures would
result from Project implementation. Similarly, no historic or prehistoric archaeological resources
were found during the current survey. Therefore, the Project would have no significant
temporary impacts to archaeological resources.
2.5.4 Mitigation Measures
Due to the presence of alluvial and colluvial soils within the Project area between Del Poniente
Road and approximately 210 feet to the north, a professional archaeologist that meets the
standards set forth at 36 CFR §800.2(a)(1) shall monitor the ground disturbance during trenching
immediately north of Del Poniente Road to observe whether archaeological deposits and/or
human remains are present. If archaeological deposits are found, the City shall comply with
36 CFR §800.13(b)(3); i.e., the City shall undertake reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize or
mitigate adverse effects to such properties, including determination of actions to resolve adverse
effects, and notification of the SHPO and/or appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(THPO), any Indian tribe that might attach religious and cultural significance to the affected
property, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation within 48 hours of the discovery.
The notification shall describe the City’s assessment of NRHP eligibility of the property and
proposed actions to resolve the adverse effects. The SHPO/THPO, the Indian tribe and the
Council shall respond within two workdays of the notification. The agency official shall take
into account their recommendations regarding NRHP eligibility and proposed actions, and then
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-9
May 2013
carry out appropriate actions. The agency official shall provide the SHPO/THPO, the tribe and
the Council (as appropriate) a report of the actions when they are completed.
If any human bones are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. In the event that the
remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as
identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and
disposition of the remains.
Section 2.5 – Cultural Resources
Espola Road Improvement Project Final EIR 2.5-10
May 2013
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK