HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com

October 7, 2015 IPQ-21

Mr. Gil Miltenberger Integral Partners Funding, LLC 2235 Encinitas Blvd, Suite 216, Encinitas, CA 92024

Subject: Buena Creek Properties – Cultural Resources Survey

Dear Mr. Miltenberger:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) was contracted to conduct a cultural resources survey in conjunction with the due diligence/constraints analysis of the Buena Creek properties (project) located near the city of Vista. This letter report details the methods and results of the cultural resources survey, which included a records search, Sacred Lands File search, a review of historic maps and aerial photographs, and a field survey.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The survey addresses eight parcels referred to as the project and outlined in the figures in this report. The project site is located in an unincorporated section of northern San Diego County near Vista (Figure 1). The project area is located north of State Route 78, west of Interstate 15, and east of Interstate 5 (Figure 1). The parcels are east of South Santa Fe Drive (Figure 2). Victory Drive runs along the project’s western border and splits into two outlets heading north and east through the northern portion of the project area (Figure 3). The project’s northwestern edge is adjacent to a portion of Buena Creek, which ultimately feeds into Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Figure 2). The project’s western boundary also borders a portion of the AT & SF rail line (Figures 2 and 3). The project area is in Township 11 South, Range 3 West, Section 33, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ San Marcos quadrangle (Figure 2).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational,

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 2 of 13 October 7, 2015

social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. 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 (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] §5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 4852) including the following:

A (1): Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; B (2): Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C (3): Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or: D (4): Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Cultural resources eligible for the CRHR are considered significant resources, and impacts to them are significant environmental effects under CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is located in the foothills of the San Marcos and Merriam Mountains. The project area is adjacent to a portion of Buena Creek, which is a tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek and the coastal lagoon environment of Agua Hedionda Lagoon located approximately nine miles to the west. Elevations within the project area range from approximately 465 feet (ft.) above mean sea level (AMSL) at the northwestern corner to approximately 520 ft. AMSL in the southeastern corner. Geologically, the project site is underlain by Mesozoic granitic rock, consisting predominantly of tonalite and diorite (Rogers 1965). Three soil types are mapped within the project area: Auld clay, Huerhuero loam, and Diablo clay. Auld clay with an average of 5 to 9 percent slopes comprises the southern half of the project area. Huerhuero loam, eroded, with an average of 5 to 9 percent slopes comprises the northwest and northeast corners of the project; the Huerhuero series is characterized by moderately well-drained loams atop a clay subsoil and are formed in sandy marine sediments (Bowman 1973). Diablo clay with an average of 2 to 9 percent slopes is present in the north-central tip of the project area, north and east of Victory Drive. These soil types would have supported native plant species such as annual grasses, forbs, and scrub oak, with scattered shrubs (Bowman 1973).

Prehistorically, the nearby Buena Creek would have provided a seasonal water source for local Native American populations. The accompanying riparian environment held a variety of resources, as well as habitat for wildlife, which would have been utilized in multiple ways by these inhabitants. Due to the amount of development that has gone on within the property, it is difficult to assess the exact physical environment that manifested during prehistoric times. However, native grasses, chaparral, and oaks would have most likely added to the vegetation community known to have been used by the local Native Americans who inhabited the area.

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 3 of 13 October 7, 2015

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Several summaries discuss the prehistory of San Diego County and provide a background for understanding the archaeology of the general area surrounding the project. Moratto’s (1984) review of the archaeology of California contains important discussions of Southern California, including the San Diego area, as does a relatively recent book by Neusius and Gross (2007). Bull (1983, 1987), Carrico (1987), Gallegos (1987), and Warren (1985, 1987) provide summaries of archaeological work and interpretations; another paper (Arnold et al. 2004) discusses advances since 1984. The following is a brief discussion of the cultural history of the San Diego region.

Carter (1957, 1978, 1980), Minshall (1976), and others (e.g., Childers 1974; Davis 1968, 1973) have long argued for the presence of Pleistocene humans in California, including the San Diego area. The sites identified as “early man” are all controversial. Carter and Minshall are best known for their discoveries at Texas Street and Buchanan Canyon. The material from these sites is generally considered nonartifactual, and the investigative methodology is often questioned (Moratto 1984).

The earliest accepted archaeological manifestation of Native Americans in the San Diego area is the San Dieguito complex, dating to approximately 10,000 years ago (Warren 1967). The material culture of the San Dieguito complex consists primarily of scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, large blades, and large projectile points. The San Dieguito complex is chronologically equivalent to other Paleoindian complexes across North America, and sites are sometimes called “Paleoindian” rather than “San Dieguito.” San Dieguito material underlies La Jolla complex strata at the C. W. Harris site in San Dieguito Valley (Warren, ed. 1966).

The traditional view of San Diego prehistory has the San Dieguito complex followed by the La Jolla complex at least 7,000 years ago, possibly as long as 9,000 years ago (Rogers 1966). The La Jolla complex is part of the Encinitas tradition and equates with Wallace’s (1955) Millingstone Horizon, also known as Early Archaic or Milling Archaic. The Encinitas tradition is generally “recognized by millingstone assemblages in shell middens, often near sloughs and lagoons” (Moratto 1984:147). “Crude” cobble tools, especially choppers and scrapers, characterize the La Jolla complex (Moriarty 1966). Basin metates, manos, discoidals, a small number of Pinto series and Elko series points, and flexed burials are also characteristic.

Warren et al. (1961) proposed that the La Jolla complex developed with the arrival of a desert people on the coast who quickly adapted to their new environment. Moriarty (1966) and Kaldenberg (1976) have suggested an in situ development of the La Jolla people from the San Dieguito complex. Moriarty has since proposed a Pleistocene migration of an ancestral stage of the La Jolla people to the San Diego coast. He suggested this Pre-La Jolla complex is represented at Texas Street, Buchanan Canyon, and the Brown site (Moriarty 1987).

Various authors (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987) have proposed that the San Dieguito, La Jolla, and Pauma complexes are manifestations of the same culture, with differing site types “explained by site location, resources exploited, influence, innovation and adaptation to a rich coastal region over a long period of time” (Gallegos 1987:30). The classic “La Jolla” assemblage is one

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 4 of 13 October 7, 2015

adapted to life on the coast and appears to continue through time (Robbins-Wade 1986, 1988; Winterrowd and Cárdenas 1987). Inland sites adapted to hunting contain a different tool kit, regardless of temporal period (Cárdenas and Van Wormer 1984).

Other archaeologists argue that an apparent overlap among assemblages identified as “La Jolla,” “Pauma,” or “San Dieguito” does not preclude the existence of an Early Milling period culture in the San Diego region, separate from an earlier culture (Cook 1985; Gross and Hildebrand 1998; Warren 1998). One perceived problem is that many site reports in the San Diego region present conclusions based on interpretations of stratigraphic profiles from sites at which stratigraphy cannot validly be used to address chronology or changes through time. The subsurface deposits at numerous sites are the result of such agencies as rodent burrowing, insect activity, and other bioturbative factors (Bocek 1986; Erlandson 1984; Gross 1992; Johnson 1989).

The Late Prehistoric period is represented by the San Luis Rey complex in the northern portion of San Diego County and the Cuyamaca complex in the southern portion. The San Luis Rey complex represents the Shoshonean predecessors of the ethnohistoric Luiseño, while the Cuyamaca complex is the archaeological manifestation of the Yuman forebears of the Kumeyaay people. The name Luiseño derives from Mission San Luis Rey de Francia and has been used to refer to the Indian people associated with that mission, while the Kumeyaay people are also known as Ipai, Tipai, or Diegueño (named for Mission San Diego de Alcala). Agua Hedionda Creek is often described as the division between the territories of the Luiseño and the Kumeyaay people (Bean and Shipek 1978; Luomala 1978; White 1963), although various archaeologists and ethnographers use slightly different boundaries. The Native American people know their traditional use areas through songs and stories passed down through generations.

The San Luis Rey complex (SLR) is divided into two phases, SLR I and SLR II. Elements of the SLR complex include small, triangular, pressure-flaked projectile points (generally Cottonwood series, but Desert side-notches series also occurs); milling implements: mortars and pestles, manos and metates, and bedrock milling features; bone awls; Olivella shell beads; other stone and shell ornaments; and cremations (Meighan 1954; Moratto 1984; True et al. 1974). The later SLR II complex also includes several elements not found in the SLR I complex: “pottery vessels, cremation urns, red and black pictographs, and such nonaboriginal items as metal knives and glass beads” (Meighan 1954:223).

SLR I was originally thought to date from A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1750, with SLR II dating between A.D. 1750 and A.D. 1850 (Meighan 1954). However, that division was based on the assumption that the Luiseño did not practice pottery manufacture until just prior to the arrival of the Spanish. The chronology has since been revised due to evidence that pottery may have been introduced to the Luiseño as early as A.D. 1200 and as late as A.D. 1600. Ceramics were likely introduced from the Luiseño’s southern neighbors, the Kumeyaay (True et al. 1974).

STUDY METHODS

HELIX conducted a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) on September 17, 2015. The records

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 5 of 13 October 7, 2015

search covered a one-mile radius around the project area and included archaeological and historical resources, locations, and citations for previous cultural resources studies, as well as a review of the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directory. The records search summary and map are included as Confidential Appendix A to this letter report.

HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 16, 2015 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts for the project area.

Historic maps and aerial photographs were reviewed to assess the potential for historic structural resources and historic archaeological resources. Maps included the 1901 USGS 30’ San Luis Rey quadrangle, the 1946 reprint of the 1901 San Luis Rey quadrangle, the 1901 USGS 15’ Escondido quadrangle, and the 1948 USGS 7.5’ San Marcos quadrangle. Historic aerial photographs were reviewed at historicaerials.com.

HELIX archaeologist Nicole Falvey and Luiseño Native American monitor Ray Castañeda from Saving Sacred Sites (San Luis Rey Band) surveyed the project area on September 23, 2015. Much of the area around the property is comprised of homes and rural residential uses. Within the property, the southwestern portion is largely disturbed by construction; current uses include a Vista Irrigation District yard, residences, and agricultural use (greenhouses, paved roads, and driveways). All open areas were surveyed in 10 meter (m) parallel transects and potentially historical structures were photographed.

One parcel could not be accessed at the time of the field survey in September 2015. This parcel was surveyed by Kristina Davison of HELIX and Shelly Nelson of Saving Sacred Sites on October 7, 2015. Field methods were the same as noted above for the rest of the project area.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

As previously noted, a records search was conducted at the SCIC for the project site and a one-mile radius. SCIC has a record of 32 cultural resources studies conducted within the records search area, one of which covers the current project area. Affinis archaeologists surveyed a majority of the project area (all but the project’s northwestern protuberance north of Victory Drive) in 2005 and identified no cultural resources within the property (Robbins-Wade and Murray 2005). It was also noted that although much of the area was disturbed, some areas had not been and may contain unseen cultural resources. Further, ground visibility was very poor during the survey; based on these factors, monitoring was recommended during initial ground clearing and grading activities (Robbins-Wade and Murray 2005).

Nine resources have been recorded within the search radius (see Table 1, Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile); none of them are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Three of these sites are bedrock milling features or complexes, two of which had artifacts present, four are prehistoric isolates, one is a historic bridge (not historically significant), and one site consists of a historic trash scatter and a prehistoric component (one hearth and a sparse lithic scatter). The records search map is included as Confidential Appendix A to this report.

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 6 of 13 October 7, 2015

Table 1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE

Resource Resource Number Number Description Recorder, Date (CA-SDI-#) (P-37-#) Historic foundation, well/windmill base and trash scatter (glass, building James, Briggs, and Campbell, 12520 012520 materials, saw-cut bone), 1991 minor prehistoric component (hearth feature, sparse lithic scatter) Two loci (35 m apart): Locus A is one milling slick James, Campbell, and Briggs, 12521 012521 and a lithic scatter; Locus B 1991 consists of three milling slicks and a lithic scatter Two bedrock milling loci located roughly 100 m apart. Locus A consists of a bedrock James, Campbell, and Briggs, 12522 012522 milling complex with 1991 15 milling slicks; Locus B consists of two milling slicks A milling area with two milling loci and a minor subsurface artifact constituent. 13009 013009 Seven boulders with Glenn, Schultze, Collins, 1993 25 milling elements and a shallow mortar; flaked stone and ground stone artifacts Isolated lithic flakes (three) Tsunoda, 2009; Carrico, 19476 030664 and one flake tool, all of fine- James, and Pigniolo, 1994 grained metavolcanic material One fine-grained -- 015099 metavolcanic flaked Clevenger and Briggs, 1991 tool fragment One fine-grained -- 015100 metavolcanic tertiary Clevenger and Briggs, 1991 (interior) flake

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 7 of 13 October 7, 2015

Table 1 (cont.) PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE

Resource Resource Number Number Description Recorder, Date (CA-SDI-#) (P-37-#) One bifacial granitic -- 015101 Clevenger and Briggs, 1991 mano fragment Historic bridge (box culvert) built ca. 1950; not eligible for Tsunoda, 2010; P.S. -- 018224 National Register of Preservation Services, 1999 Historic Places

RESULTS

Historic aerial photographs and topographic maps were referenced for historical information about the project site. No buildings are shown within the project area on the 1901 topographic maps, although there are buildings in the vicinity. Four buildings located within the project site are shown on the 1948 USGS 7.5’ San Marcos quadrangle. One of these, in the southeastern corner, is pictured on historic aerial photographs from at least 1938, two first appear in aerial photographs in 1947, and the fourth building noted on the map in the northwest is unidentifiable on historic aerials (historicaerials.com). The other buildings on site do not appear on maps or aerial photographs until the 1970s or later.

Ground visibility during the survey was generally poor, with modern buildings, greenhouses, and associated equipment and wood chip piles covering large swatches of ground. Despite these disturbances, many areas, especially in the western half of the property, appeared relatively undisturbed. Five historic houses (over 50 years old) were found to be extent and were located where the 1948 map indicated. The houses were all photographed, and distinguishing features were noted. The easternmost houses appeared to have been recently refurbished. The central house, located south of the northern branch of Victory Drive, displayed a vernacular architectural style with the exterior walls either constructed of or covered in a façade of local granite rocks cemented together. This house appeared to have historic integrity. A collapsed structure, possibly a shed or small barn, was located just south of the house and also appeared to be historic in age. No other cultural resources or historic artifacts were observed.

The NAHC was contacted for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts. To date, no response has been received from the NAHC.

POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS/RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

Five houses of historic age are present within the project area. These houses have not been evaluated by a historian; however, based on preliminary review, only the house with the granitic façade appears to be potentially architecturally significant. A historian/architectural historian

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 8 of 13 October 7, 2015 should evaluate the houses and record them with SCIC. If any of these houses are determined to be significant resources and cannot be avoided through project design, impacts to them could be mitigated through Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)-level documentation. One caveat is that if the project is processed through the County of San Diego (County), and any resources are determined to reach the standards of significance under the Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO), impacts to these resources cannot be mitigated, they must be avoided.

No archaeological resources have been identified within the project parcels. Therefore, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated; however, the ground surface in much of the project area could not be seen. Based on this, there is a potential for archaeological resources to be present. Given the potential for cultural resources to be present in the project area, archaeological monitoring by an archaeologist and a Native American (Luiseño) monitor is recommended during ground-disturbing construction activities, including brushing/grubbing and initial grading. It is anticipated that either the City of Vista or the County would require such monitoring.

If you have any questions, please contact Mary Robbins-Wade at (619) 462-1515.

Mary Robbins-Wade, RPA Kristina Davison Nicole Falvey Director of Cultural Resources Staff Archaeologist Staff Archaeologist Southern California

Attachments:

Figure 1 Regional Location Map Figure 2 Project Vicinity (USGS Topography, San Marcos Quad) Figure 3 Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph)

Confidential Attachment:

A Records Search Map

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 9 of 13 October 7, 2015

REFERENCES

Arnold, J.E., M.R. Walsh, and S.E. Hollimon. 2004 The Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research 12:1-73.

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

Bocek, Barbara 1986 Rodent Ecology and Burrowing Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 51:589-603.

Bowman, Roy H. 1973 Soil Survey: San Diego Area. United States Department of Agriculture. Beltsville, MD.

Bull, Charles S. 1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 1(3):15-64. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University.

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 1.

Cárdenas, D. Seán, and Stephen R. Van Wormer 1984 Archaeological Investigation of SDI-4648 and SDM-W-348. RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Report submitted to the City of El Cajon, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Carrico, Richard L. 1987 Sixty-five Years of San Diego County Archaeology. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.

Carter, George F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

1978 An American Lower Paleolithic. Anthropological Journal of Canada 16:2-38.

1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in America. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 10 of 13 October 7, 2015

Childers, W. Morlin 1974 Preliminary Report on the Yuha Burial, California. Anthropological Journal of Canada 12 (1):2-9.

Cook, John R. 1985 An Investigation of the San Dieguito Quarries and Workshops near Rancho Santa Fe, California. Mooney-Lettieri and Associates, San Diego. Report submitted to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Davis, E.L. 1968 Early Man in the Mojave Desert. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1 (4):42-47.

1973 People of the Old Stone Age at China Lake. Ms., on file at Great Basin Foundation, San Diego.

Erlandson, Jon M. 1984 A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the Burrowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials. American Antiquity 49:785-790.

Gallegos, Dennis 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.

Gross, G. Timothy 1992 Site Formation and Transformation Processes in Coastal Shell Middens and Shell-Rich Sites. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 195-204. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications 10, University of California, Davis.

Gross, G. Timothy, and John A. Hildebrand 1998 San Dieguito and La Jolla: Insights from the 1964 Excavations at the C.W. Harris Site. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego.

Johnson, Donald L. 1989 Subsurface Stone Lines, Stone Zones, Artifact-Manuport Layers, and Biomantles Produced by Bioturbation Via Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae). American Antiquity 54:370-389.

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 11 of 13 October 7, 2015

Kaldenberg, Russell L. 1976 Paleo-technological Change at Rancho Park North, San Diego County, California. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.

Luomala, Katherine 1978 Tipai-Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. The Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Meighan, C. W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215-227.

Minshall, Herbert L. 1976 The Broken Stones. Copley Books, San Diego.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Moriarty, James R., III 1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested By Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. The Anthropological Journal of Canada 4 (4):20-30.

1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 49-60. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1.

Neusius, Sarah W., and G. Timothy Gross 2007 Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York.

Robbins-Wade, Mary 1986 Rising Glen: SDM-W-143/146 (SDI-5213 C & D). Casual Papers 2 (2):37-58. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University.

1988 Coastal Luiseño: Refining the San Luis Rey Complex. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Fresno, California 1:75-95. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego.

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 12 of 13 October 7, 2015

Robbins-Wade, Mary and Matt Murray 2005 Cultural Resources Inventory: Olson Property, Vista, San Diego County, California. Affinis, El Cajon, California. Report submitted to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Rogers, Malcolm J. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.

Rogers, Thomas H. 1965 Santa Ana Sheet, Geologic Map of California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento.

True, D.L., C.W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology, vol 11.

Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.

Warren, Claude N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185.

1985 Garbage about the Foundations: A Comment on Bull’s Assertions. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 2(1):82-90. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University.

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 1.

1998 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, Ten Years Later. Discussant in symposium at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego.

Warren, Claude N. (editor) 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5. San Diego Museum of Man.

Letter to Mr. Gil Miltenberger Page 13 of 13 October 7, 2015

Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961, pp. 1-106. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.

Winterrowd, Cathy L., and D. Seán Cárdenas 1987 An Archaeological Indexing of a Portion of the Village of La Rinconada de Jamo SDI-5017 (SDM-W-150). RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of San Diego, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE SAN DIEGO Vail Lake COUNTY COUNTY

Fallbrook A¨

O'Neill Lake Aª

Warner Springs

Camp Pendleton Lake Henshaw WÛ Oceanside Project Site

!"^$ A©Vista ! Lake Wohlford

San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad Sutherland Lake San Marcos Reservoir !"a$ A©

A© Julian Encinitas Lake WÛ Hodges Lake Ramona Ramona Lake Poway ?z Solana Beach Poway Del Mar WÙ ?z56 San Vicente Reservoir San Diego Miramar Reservoir ?z El Capitan Reservoir Pacific %&s( Santee Lake Jennings Santee !"_$ Ocean ?h Lakes

5 Aª

1 La Jolla

0 Alpine 2 / 6

1 !"^$ / 9

1 El Cajon 2

- Lake Murray

Q A× P I

Aù

!"_$ Loveland Reservoir d x

m ?j . La Mesa l a n o i g Lemon e R

_ Grove 1 AÀ g i AÀ F \

p !"a$ a Coronado Barrett Lake

M Sweetwater \ e

c Reservoir n S e a National g i n l i D City ?j D i e e u g Otay Reservoir

D o k Dulzura e B e San Diego r a

C y Chula Vista A× a n e u B

_ %&s( 1 2 -

Q Imperial P I \ Beach !"^$ Otay Q S P AÛ ATE I ST \ ITED I UN \ S

T MEXICO C E J O R P

\ Tijuana : I Regional Location Map BUENA CREEK DUE DILIGENCE 0 8 N Miles Figure 1 Project Site G N

5 1 0 2 / 6 1 / 9

1 2 - Q P I

d x m . o p o T S G S U _ 2 g i F \ p a M \ e c n e g i l i D e u D k e e r C a n e u B _ 1 2 - Q P I \ Q P I \ I \ S T C E J O R P \ S I G \ M V s i G E Project Site H Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed \ \ Project Vicinity (USGS Topography, San Marcos Quad) BUENA CREEK DUE DILIGENCE 0 2,000 N Feet Figure 2 I:\PROJECTS\I\IPQ\IPQ-21_BuenaCreekDueDiligence\Map\Fig3_Aerial.mxd IPQ-21 9/16/2015 - NG N 0 3 0 F 0 e e t P r o j e c t

V i c i n i t y

( B A U e E N r A i

a C l R

E P E h K

D o U t E o

D g I L r F I a G i g E p u N r h e C

E 3 )