The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAppendix D - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE SIERRA BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APNs 239-151-09, -19, -25, -26, -36, and -38 Lead Agency: City of Fontana Community Development Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 Preparer: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 ___________________ Signature Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 March 23, 2022 Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i Archaeological Database Information Authors: Jillian L.H. Conroy, Jennifer R.K. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 Client/Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92614 Report Date: March 23, 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 239 -151-09, -19, -25, -26, -36, and -38) Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Structure Evaluation Cultural Resources: Temp-1 (5187 Sierra Avenue; APN 239-151-09) USGS Quadrangle: Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 5 West of the USGS Devore, California (7.5-minute) Quadrangle Acreage: 31.5 acres Key Words: Survey; historic residence at 5187 Sierra Avenue recorded as Temp-1; monitoring of grading is recommended; historic building not significant and preservation not recommended. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii Table of Contents Section Description Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ......................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................1.0–1 1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1 1.3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................1.0–5 1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ........................................1.0–17 1.4 Applicable Regulations .....................................................................................1.0–18 1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................1.0–18 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................2.0–1 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1 3.1 Methods.............................................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.1 Archival Research ....................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.2 Survey Methods ........................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment .................................................................3.0–1 3.2 Results of the Field Survey ...............................................................................3.0–2 3.3 Historic Structure Analysis ...............................................................................3.0–2 3.3.1 History of the Project Area ......................................................................3.0–2 3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resource ...........................................................3.0–11 3.3.3 Significance Evaluation ...........................................................................3.0–14 3.4 Discussion/Summary ........................................................................................3.0–29 4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................4.0–1 4.1 Resource Importance ........................................................................................4.0–1 4.2 Impact Identification .........................................................................................4.0–1 5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................5.0–1 5.1 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................5.0–1 5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................5.0–1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED .......................6.0–1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................7.0–1 Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii List of Appendices Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel Appendix B – Site Record Form* Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results* Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results* Appendix E – Historic Documents * Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix List of Figures Figure Description Page Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map ...................................................................................1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map ....................................................................................1.0–3 Figure 1.1–3 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................1.0–4 Figure 3.2–1 Cultural Resource Location Map ...................................................................3.0–4 Figure 3.3–1 Historic Structure Location Map ...................................................................3.0–5 List of Plates Plate Description Page Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the Acacia property from the northwest corner, facing southeast ...........................................................................................................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the Shea property from the southwest corner, facing northeast ..3.0–3 Plate 3.3–1 1953 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–6 Plate 3.3–2 1958 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–7 Plate 3.3–3 1966 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–12 Plate 3.3–4 1980 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–13 Plate 3.3–5 West Façade of the Building, Facing East .......................................................3.0–15 Plate 3.3–6 West Façade of the Building, Facing Northeast ..............................................3.0–16 Plate 3.3–7 View of the Front Entry on the West Façade of the Building, Facing North ..3.0–17 Plate 3.3–8 South Façade of the Building, Facing East ......................................................3.0–18 Plate 3.3–9 Southeast Corner of the Building, Facing Northwest ......................................3.0–19 Plate 3.3–10 Northwest Corner of the Building, Facing Southeast ....................................3.0–20 Plate 3.3–11 East Façade of the Building, Facing West .....................................................3.0–21 Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv List of Plates (continued) Plate Description Page Plate 3.3–12 East Façade of the Building, Facing Southwest .............................................3.0–22 Plate 3.3–13 View Beneath the Carport on the West Façade of the Building, Facing East ................................................................................................................3.0–23 Plate 3.3–14 West Façade of the Building, Facing Southeast ............................................3.0–24 List of Tables Table Description Page Table 1.3–1 Cultural Resources Located Within a One-Mile Radius of the Sierra Business Center Project ..................................................................................1.0–17 Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT In response to a requirement by the City of Fontana, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a cultural resources survey of the 31.5-acre Sierra Business Center Project. The project is located southeast of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California, and includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 239-151-09, -19, -25, -26, -36, and -38. The project is situated within Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the 7.5-minute USGS Devore, California topographic quadrangle map. The northern 19.9 acres (APNs 239-151-19, -25, -26, and -36) are owned by Acacia Properties, Inc. (“Acacia property”) and the southern 11.6 acres (APNs 239-151-09 and -38) are owned by Shea Properties (“Shea property”). The overall project is disturbed, having been previously utilized by agricultural and residential purposes throughout the twentieth century. As a result of the previous land use, the properties have been repeatedly graded, cleared, and developed. The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings located in the southernmost parcel (APN 239-151-09) and develop the entire property. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Fontana’s environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An archaeological records search was requested from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) on January 11, 2022 in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries or in the immediate vicinity. The SCCIC records search results indicate that 10 resources have been recorded within one mile of the project, none of which are located within the subject property. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) review by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The archaeological survey, which was conducted January 26, 2022, was completed in order to determine if cultural resources exist within the property and if the project represents a potential adverse impact to cultural resources. The survey resulted in the identification of one historic residence at 5187 Sierra Avenue (APN 239-151-09), which was recorded as Temp-1. This structure was constructed between 1953 and 1958 and meets the age threshold under CEQA to be historic. According to the proposed development plan, the Sierra Business Center Project will impact the historic residence. Based upon the results of the field survey and records searches, from the perspective of the CEQA review of the proposed development, Site Temp-1 has been evaluated as not significant. While the building is historic in age, it was not designed by an architect of importance, does not possess any architecturally important elements, and the owners were not historically significant to the community. Based upon the conclusions reached during the current evaluation, no mitigation measures are recommended for the historic building at Temp- 1. No impacts to significant resources are associated with the proposed development of the Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi property. Although the historic building was evaluated as not CEQA-significant, the potential exists that unidentified significant historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this location since the 1950s. Because of this potential to encounter buried cultural deposits, monitoring of grading by a qualified archaeologist is recommended. As no Native American prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the property, Native American monitoring would not be required during grading unless and until a discovery of a prehistoric site or deposit occurs, at which time a Native American monitor should be incorporated into the monitoring program. Should potentially significant cultural deposits be discovered, mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the effects of the grading impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been provided in this report. As part of this study, a copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The archaeological survey program for the project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The project is located southeast of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The property, which includes APNs 239-151-09, -19, -25, -26, -36, and -38, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Devore, California topographic quadrangle in Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 5 West (Figure 1.1–2). Presently, the 31.5-acre project is owned by two entities: Acacia Properties, Inc. and Shea Properties. Acacia Properties, Inc. owns the northern 19.9 acres, which includes APNs 239-151-19, -25, -26, and -36, and Shea Properties owns the southern 11.6 acres, which includes APNs 239-151-09 and -38. The project proposes to demolish the existing structures located within APN 239-151-09 and develop the entire property (Figure 1.1–3). The Acacia property is currently vacant and undeveloped, while APN 239-151-09 within the Shea property is currently developed with one single-family residence, associated non- permanent structures, and paved/gravel parking areas. The overall project is highly disturbed, having been previously utilized for agricultural and residential purposes throughout the twentieth century. As a result of the previous land use, the properties have been repeatedly graded and cleared. The decision to request this investigation was based upon the cultural resource sensitivity of the locality, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns. The proximity to Lytle Creek and the terrestrial ecosystems surrounding the creek are part of an environmental setting that supported a significant prehistoric population for over 10,000 years. The property is located within an area that historically supported rural residential/agricultural and industrial businesses, and structures older than 50 years of age are common in the project vicinity. 1.2 Environmental Setting The project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the city of Fontana. The subject property is part of the Chino Basin, south of the San Gabriel Mountains, north of the Jurupa Mountains, and west of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains extend east from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to the Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges with peaks exceeding 9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–5 The project is situated west of the southern end of Lytle Creek. The general project area is characterized as relatively flat, with an average elevation of 1,762 feet AMSL in the southwest, gradually sloping to 1,815 feet AMSL in the northeast. The property has been previously impacted by cultivation and residential development. No natural features that are often associated with prehistoric sites, such as bedrock outcrops or natural sources of water, are visible on aerial photographs or maps of the project area. The project primarily lies near the western margin and distal southern end of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan, which emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains approximately nine to 10 miles to the north as a result of uplift and dissection of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains (Wirths 2022). The main source of these sediments is from the Lytle Creek drainage, near where the northwest-southeast-trending San Andreas fault zone cuts across and separates the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges (Morton and Miller 2006). Geomorphically, the project occupies the Fontana Plain (Dutcher and Garrett 1963). Geologically, the project is mapped as young alluvial fan deposits of Lytle Creek (Morton 2003) that are Holocene and late Pleistocene in age, a period of time spanning up to approximately 120,000 years ago (Cohen and Gibbard 2011). The young alluvial fan deposits are underlain by late to middle Pleistocene-aged old alluvial fan deposits (Morton 2003; Dutcher and Garrett 1963) deposited between roughly 11,700 to 780,000 years ago (Cohen and Gibbard 2011). During the prehistoric period, vegetation near the project provided sufficient food resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project during prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely obtainable from the Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek, and the Santa Ana River. Historically, the property likely contained the same plant and animal species that are present today. 1.3 Cultural Setting Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex, the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex, and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.” Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–6 Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably. Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP). Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995). Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP). Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–7 At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters 1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects on the types of resources available to prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten, but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000). The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water, and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants, including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002). The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate. Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) Gabrielino The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–8 and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage. Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–9 baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth- covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs. Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Serrano Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data: The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were, one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b) Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–10 However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam. The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b). According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon “economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California” (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large, autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b). According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano are very similar to those of the Cahuilla: There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death, supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power- access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster- transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and Smith 1978b) The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer, using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband, wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b). Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–11 The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality. Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots, bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924). The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew- backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull- roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches, cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978). Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present) Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis. European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial, long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–12 from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921). Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman 1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California. Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County. These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente (circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976). Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824. As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–13 thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832. These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo (Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments within western Riverside County. The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros: We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev. Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21) Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976). By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war (Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–14 into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines, business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27 separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984). During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County, including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998). With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho. Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson 1971). Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s, Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–15 Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents (Patterson 1971). General History of the City of Fontana According to the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 (City of Fontana 2018a), the history of the city is primarily broken up into four periods, or “contexts,” identified as “The Four Fontanas.” The four periods are Rural Pioneer Community: 1850 to 1906; Fontana Farms: 1906 to 1942; Steeltown: 1942 to 1983; and Suburban Bedroom Community: 1983 to 2006 (City of Fontana 2018a). Rural Pioneer Community: 1850 to 1906 In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, co-founder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as part of the Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017). Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and settlers of the lands surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in which the United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water Company was formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to: [U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them, quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888) The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888). In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana Development Company purchased Rosena, and by 1905 had begun the building of a farming Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–16 complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982). Fontana Farms: 1906 to 1942 By 1906, Miller had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company assets and created the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company. Afterward, Miller oversaw the construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from Lytle Creek, as well as the planting of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Conford 1995). In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Much of the land to the south of the townsite was utilized as a hog farm, while the remainder of the Fontana Farms Company land was subdivided into small farms. The smaller “starter farms” were approximately 2.5 acres and the new owner was able to choose between grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery. “By 1930 the Fontana Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Conford 1995). Steeltown: 1942 to 1983 Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers of steel west of the Mississippi River. The Kaiser Steel Mill was built in response to the United States government’s need for a steel mill and factory on the west coast to construct ships and airplanes following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Sturm et al. 1995). Following World War II, the mill shifted production to can manufacturing, tin plating, and pipe milling (Sturm et al. 1995). To provide for his workers’ health needs, Henry J. Kaiser constructed the Fontana Kaiser Permanente medical facility, which is now the largest managed care organization in the United States. The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952, and the Kaiser Steel Mill continued to expand through the 1950s and 1960s. In addition to health care, Kaiser created Kaiser Community Homes to address the burgeoning housing needs of post-war America. Within Fontana and neighboring Ontario, Kaiser Community Homes provided affordable residential neighborhoods and housing subdivisions to meet the steel mill workers’ housing needs (City of Fontana 2018a). “Kaiser Steel also worked with the United Steelworkers of America to develop an innovative profit-sharing plan in which labor shared in cost savings resulting from technology and labor productivity improvements” (City of Fontana 2018a). By the late 1970s, the Kaiser Steel Mill had begun to experience a massive downturn in production, which resulted in a 3,000-person layoff (Sturm et al. 1995). The Kaiser Steel Corp. was important in the expansion of development in the mid-twentieth century, supplying steel for the construction of buildings throughout the region and nation. However, the mill ultimately closed its doors and ceased production in 1983. In 1984, California Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–17 Steel Industries (CSI) purchased the southern 380 acres of the 480-acre property and portions of the factory were reopened. A 1995 archaeological survey by LSA Associates, Inc. indicates that the property to the north that was not purchased by CSI was demolished by Hollywood movie explosions throughout the 1980s (Sturm et al. 1995). In the late 1990s, construction of the California Speedway resulted in further damage to original steel mill property (McLean and Monk 1997). Suburban Bedroom Community: 1983 to 2006 With the closing of the steel mill in 1983, residential development became the primary driving factor for economic growth in Fontana (City of Fontana 2018b). Between 1980 and 1987, Fontana’s population doubled from 35,000 to 70,000 and was assisted by the Fontana Redevelopment Agency, who provided incentives for housing developers to build within the city (City of Fontana 2018b; Conford 1995). This process led to the first specific plan and development agreement for the SouthRidge residential area. Residential development continued to expand through the 1990s; however, commercial activities in the downtown area declined as new commercial developments near freeways and the new residential areas pulled shopping away from the historic downtown core (City of Fontana 2018b). More recently, the city has become a transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect the area (Anicic 2005; City of Fontana 2018a). 1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search The SCCIC records search results indicate that 10 resources have been recorded within one mile of the project, none of which are located within the subject property (Table 1.3–1). All 10 resources are historic and include irrigation features, a homestead, structure remains, road segments, refuse scatters, landscape features, walls and structures, and a historic district. Table 1.3–1 Archaeological Sites Recorded Within a One-Mile Radius of the Sierra Business Center Project Site(s) Description P-36-006110 Historic Canaigre Ditch SBR-6112H Historic homestead SBR-8697H Historic structure remains SBR-8698H, SBR-11,510H, SBR-11,511H, and SBR-11,513H Historic road segment SBR-10,878H Historic rock and plaster trough, refuse scatter, and structure P-36-015376 Historic Grapeland Homestead Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–18 Site(s) Description and Water Works Historic District SBR-13,798H Historic landscape features, walls, and refuse scatters The results of the records search data also indicate that 18 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the subject property, five of which (Anicic 1983; De Barros 1987; Schneider 1989; SAIC 1999; Dice 2006) include portions of the project. The full records search results are provided in Appendix C. The following historic sources were also reviewed: • The National Register of Historic Places Index • The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility • The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory • Aerial photographs from 1930, 1933, 1938, 1953, 1958, 1959, 1966, 1975, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 • The USGS 1896 15' San Bernardino, 1936 and 1941 1:31,680-scale Devore, and 1954 and 1966 7.5' Devore topographic maps No archaeological resources were identified as a result of any of the above sources; however, the 1958 aerial photograph and the 1966 Devore topographic map does show structures within the south portion of the subject property. BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC on January 11, 2022. The SLF search was positive for the presence of sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the search radius and the NAHC recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for further information. All correspondence can be found within Appendix D. 1.4 Applicable Regulations Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination, as provided below. 1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following: Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–19 1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a 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 CRHR (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) 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) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as: 1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–20 surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. 2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites: 1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply. 3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–21 Section 15064.5(d and e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides: (d) When an Initial sStudy identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC, as provided in PRC SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from: 1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). 2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–1 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is in the city of Fontana in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the Sierra Business Center Project included the survey of a 31.5-acre area and the assessment of one historic structure. Given the area involved, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address regional research topics and issues. Although survey programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources: • Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual? • Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited? • How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area? • How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for the region? For the historic structure located within the project, the potential for historic deposits is considered remote, and therefore, the research process was focused upon the built environment and those individuals associated with the ownership, design, and construction of the buildings within the project footprint. Although historic structure evaluations are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed historic resources: • Can the building be associated with any significant individuals or events? • Is the building representative of a specific type, style, or method of construction? • Is the building associated with any nearby structures? Does the building, when studied Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–2 with the nearby structures, qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district? • Was the building designed or constructed by a significant architect, designer, builder, or contractor? Data Needs At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area occupants. Further, the overall goal of the historic structure assessment is to understand the construction and use of the buildings within their associated historic context. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from both an archaeological and historic perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind: 1) To identify cultural and historic resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified, and the type, style, and method of construction for any buildings; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; 4) To identify persons or events associated with any buildings and their construction; and 5) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural and historic resource identified. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–1 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 31.5-acre project, and the detailed recordation of all identified cultural resources. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Fontana environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995). 3.1 Methods 3.1.1 Archival Research Records relating to the ownership and developmental history of this project were sought to identify any associated historic persons, historic events, or architectural significance. Records research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the SCCIC, the Fontana Historical Society, the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public Library. Appendix E contains maps of the property, including historic USGS maps from 1936, 1941, 1955, 1966, and 1988 and the current Assessor’s parcel map. No Sanborn maps are available as the property is outside the Fontana coverage areas. 3.1.2 Survey Methods The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 15 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, including all potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located. Photographs documenting survey discoveries and overall survey conditions were taken frequently. All cultural resources were recorded as necessary according to the OHP’s manual, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms. 3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment Methods for evaluating the integrity and significance of the historic building within APN 239-151-09 included photographic documentation and review of available archival documents. During the survey, photographs were taken of all building elevations. The photographs were used to complete architectural descriptions of the building. The original core structure and all modifications made to the building since its initial construction were also recorded. The current setting of the building was compared to the historical setting of the property. This information was combined with the archival research in order to evaluate the building’s seven aspects of Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–2 integrity, as well as their potential significance under CEQA guidelines. 3.2 Results of the Field Survey Field archaeologist Lucia Majel conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on January 7 and 26, 2022, under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. Ground visibility was limited due to development and patches of dense vegetation (Plates 3.2–1 and 3.2–2). The entire property appears to have been previously graded and developed and dirt access roads are located throughout the property. Piles of rocks, construction debris, bricks, and broken glass were identified throughout the property. These were carefully inspected but the contents appear to be modern. As a result of the field survey, one historic single-family residence was identified within the project at 5187 Sierra Avenue. The building has been recorded as Temp-1 with the SCCIC (Figure 3.2–1) and was subsequently evaluated for significance as part of this study. No other cultural resources were observed during the survey of the project. 3.3 Historic Structure Analysis Within the boundaries of the subject property, one historic building has been identified (Figure 3.3–1). DPR site forms were submitted to the SCCIC on March 23, 2022. Once processed, the SCCIC will assign the new resource a permanent site number. The following section provides the pertinent field results for the significance evaluation for the historic building located within the project boundaries, which was conducted in accordance with City of Fontana guidelines and site evaluation protocols. Site Temp-1 includes a Spanish Revival-style, single-family residence at 5187 Sierra Avenue. The County of San Bernardino Parcel Information Management System database indicates that the structure was built in 1927; however, historic aerial photographs indicate that the structure was not present on the subject property until between 1953 and 1958 (Plates 3.3–1 and 3.3–2). A description and significance evaluation of the historic resource are provided below. 3.3.1 History of the Project Area According to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) files, the first recorded owner of the project area was Michael White, who was granted 31,216 acres in 1872 as part of the 1851 Spanish/Mexican land grant: Michael White, a native of either England or Ireland, was born sometime between 1802 and 1806. He was sailor by trade and may have visited Baja California as early as 1817. Afterward, he made several voyages between the Sandwich Islands (Hawaiian Islands) and Mexico’s Pacific coast. The British ship, Dolly, brought White to Alta California in 1829. He soon became a Mexican citizen, as did most Anglo immigrants at the time in order to marry and hold property. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–3 0 (Ancestry.com 2010). Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the Shea property from the southwest corner, facing northeast. Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the Acacia property from the northwest corner, facing southeast. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–8 He was given a Mexican name, Miguel Blanco, which is the Spanish form of Michael White. White may have first settled in the San Pedro area, although there was no permanent settlement there at that time of his arrival. San Pedro was part of the Rancho Los Palos Verdes, owned by the Sepulveda family, and was a desolate place. His living in San Pedro is supported by his name appearing on early records as being one of the ship builders of the Guadalupe, which was constructed there at Goleta Point in 1830. White, along with former pirate, Joseph Chapman, constructed the schooner, Guadalupe from the remains of the brig, Danube, which ran aground in a storm on Christmas Eve, 1828. The vessel was built for the padres of the San Gabriel Mission to be sold to sea otter traders. White sailed the Guadalupe to Mazatlan and returned in 1832. Upon his return from Mexico, White married Maria del Rosaria Gullien, who was a daughter of Dona Eulalia Perez de Gullien, the old matron and bookkeeper at the San Gabriel Mission. Following his marriage, White set up a small store at Rancho Los Nietos, a short distance south of the mission. Smuggling was a common practice along the California coast in the 1830s. Mexican authorities imposed high tariffs upon imported goods, which was desperately needed by the citizens of the province. The settlers in California were neglected by Mexico and there was no industry, so there was a heavy reliance upon trade with foreign vessels and smuggling was generally accepted by the citizenry. White may have been involved in a smuggling scheme in San Francisco in 1833. Although a man named White was accused of this illegal deed, it has never been determined that the implicated individual named White was the same as Michael White. In 1836, White was listed as living at Los Angeles, but as a former world adventurer, he had the wanderlust to move again. Three years later he went to New Mexico where he may have involved himself in the fur trade. He returned to San Gabriel with the Rowland and Workman Party in early November 1841. Later, William Workman and John Rowland, the party leaders, would acquire former San Gabriel Mission land known as Rancho La Puente. In 1843 White was granted Rancho Muscupiabe by Governor Manuel Micheltorena. It was a single league of land located near the Cajon Pass in the San Bernardino Mountains. It was named for a Serrano Indian village in the vicinity. The remote rancho was subjected to frequent raids by Paiute Indians and their allies; therefore, it was abandoned in 1844 because it was indefensible. The following Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–9 year, White participated in the revolt against Governor Manuel Micheltorena. He was a member of the company of foreigners led by William Workman at the Battle of Cahuenga late February 1845. After a failed attempt with Rancho Muscupiabe, Miguel Blanco had another chance to become a ranchero. Due to the Mexican Secularization Act of 1834, all mission properties in California were available for sale. In 1845, White received a concession to 500 square varas (77.23 acres) of land north of the San Gabriel Mission from Governor Pio Pico. This tract was one of several smaller land grants in the area given to former associates of the secularized mission. White may have had the land bestowed upon him for his service to the mission and for building the Guadalupe fifteen years prior. Also, being the son-in-law of the influential, Dona Eulalia, may have helped some. White named his small concession Rancho San Ysidro (Ranch of Saint Isidore) … After receiving the grant, he built the adobe dwelling, which stands today at San Marino High School. The original adobe section of the house was a story and a half. Later, a two-story wing made of wooden ship siding was added. White planted a vineyard and an orchard consisting of a variety of fruit trees. Although, this became his permanent home, he still yearned to travel and in passing years he embarked on several sea voyages. The year 1846 brought war between the United States and Mexico. California entered the war in June of that year with the American invasion of Monterey. Los Angeles was the next to fall into the hands of the invaders two months later. In September, a revolt led by Serbulo Varela expelled the American garrison holding the pueblo. By this time, a party of fifteen foreign born (mostly American) yet naturalized Mexican citizens led by Benjamin Davis Wilson were stationed at Rancho del Chino to protect the eastern frontier from enemy forces that may approach from the Cajon Pass. The Californios doubted the loyalty of Wilson’s men and set out to arrest them. Varela, Diego Sepulveda and Ramon Carrillo left Los Angeles with about fifty men, while Carmen Lugo with another fifteen to twenty men left from San Bernardino to converge upon Rancho del Chino … After the war, and after California was admitted to the Union, the United States Land Commission was formed. White had to prove his claim to his little parcel north of the mission. He was able to do so and continued living there for many years. Here, he raised a large family and when his children married he gave the lots upon his ranch so that they could raise their own families. One daughter Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–10 married Francisco Alvarado, the brother of Governor Jose Alvarado. The Alvarados lived on a quaint farm on the White Tract. Eventually, White sold San Ysidro to L. H. Titus, who owned an adjoining ranch to the east. Titus, in turn sold the property to James C. Flood. Michael White, also known as Miguel Blanco, died in 1885. (Kielbasa 1997) According to BLM GLO files, by 1892, 160 acres of White’s property in San Bernardino County, containing the subject property, were patented to Albert G. Pier. In 1891, Pier was recorded in the San Bernardino city directory as a farmer living in Ivanpah near the California- Nevada border (Ancestry.com 2011a). In 1888, he was listed in voter registration records as residing in Hesperia, California (Ancestry.com 2011b). In 1900, he lived in Madera County, California with his brother (Ancestry.com 2004). Pier passed away in Madera County from tuberculosis in 1903 (Ancestry.com 2017). Although the land was not officially patented to Pier until 1892, he was already utilizing it, and in 1891, actually sold the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 20, which includes the current project, to B.F. Thorpe et al. (Daily Courier 1891). Benjamin F. Thorpe lived in the Los Angeles area in the 1890s and in Covina from at least 1906 until 1920, and again between 1921 and 1936 (San Bernardino County Sun 1936). Thorpe is listed on the 1920 Federal Census as residing on Lilac Road in Bonsall Hills in San Diego County, where he managed the Canfield Estate Ranch (Ancestry.com 2010). While at the ranch, Thorpe also served as president of the Chamber of Commerce of Northern San Diego County, vice president of the Oceanside Chamber of Commerce, and a director of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. He also acted as a director of the Farm Bureau (McGrew 1922). Thorpe can be found in Bonsall directories until 1921; however, by the time that the 1930 Federal Census was conducted, he had returned to Covina where he worked as an orange grower (Ancestry.com 2002). Thorpe passed away in Los Angeles in 1957 (Ancestry.com 2012). Although San Bernardino County records indicate that the property was developed in 1927, no structures are visible in the location of the 5187 Sierra Avenue residence until between 1953 and 1958. From 1956 to 1958, the 5187 Sierra Avenue residence was occupied by William F. and Adeline P. White (Ancestry.com 2017). As there was record of the building in 1956, it was likely constructed between 1953 and 1956. In 1960, only Adeline White was recorded in voter registration records as residing at the property (Ancestry.com 2017). In 1964, she lived on Redwood Avenue in Fontana, and in 1969, moved to Oceanside where she worked for Pacific State Hospital for 13 years. Adeline White passed away in Oceanside, California in 1991. Her obituary states that she was preceded in death by William but it doesn’t indicate what year he died, and no record of his death could be located (North County Times 1991). Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–11 In 1965, the property was used as “Remy’s Riding Stable” for teenagers and adults “ages 16 and over” (San Bernardino County Sun 1965). In 1977, the property was owned by John and Rena (née Bird) Edmiston. The couple was married in San Bernardino in 1965 (Ancestry.com 2007a). However, no records could be located indicating that the couple resided at the property. During 1977, the Edmistons divorced and sold the property to Michael and Donna Harris (Ancestry.com 2007b). In 1978, the Harrises sold it to Seborn and Mary Griffith, who retained ownership until 1989. It is unclear if Seborn and Mary Griffith lived at the property and no information about the couple could be located, but from 1978 to 1980, Nathan Raymond Griffith and his wife Marian, lived at the property. Nathan Griffith was in his 30s when he lived at the property (San Bernardino County Sun 1978, 1980). In 1989, the property was sold to Donald and Kimber Lance and that year, Philip G. Sparks lived at the property (Ancestry.com 2010). No information could be located about the Lances or Sparks. In 1991, Marion Gaylord lived at the property. In 1992, David L. Jason is listed as the occupant, and in 1993, Gaylord is listed as residing at the home again (Ancestry.com 2010). No information could be located about Gaylord or Jason. In 1995, Robert P. Killins lived at the property. Killins was previously arrested in 1991 for drug possession when a fire started at his home in Colton, which was caused by Killins manufacturing methamphetamines (San Bernardino County Sun 1991). The fire that damaged the kitchen of the 5187 Sierra Avenue building occurred while Killins was living at the home. Gaylord was recorded at the property again in 1996 (Ancestry.com 2010) and in 2001 and 2002, Don Lange lived at the property (Ancestry.com 2010). Between 2014 and 2018, Alexandria “Burgou” lived at the property and between 2016 and 2020, Patricia “Burgoues” is listed as a resident. Nicholas Lewis Wagner was also recorded as residing at the property between 2013 and 2020 (Ancestry.com 2010). 3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resource The 5187 Sierra Avenue single-family residence was constructed between 1953 and 1958 in the Spanish Revival architectural style. The building was originally constructed with a rectangular footprint until a square room addition was built onto the east side of the north façade between 1966 and 1980 (Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–4), according to aerial photographs. West of the addition is a non-original, wood-framed carport that was constructed in 1995. The residence has been recently painted and restuccoed. The roof was repaired in 1995 due to fire damage under the kitchen in the southeast portion of the building. As part of the repairs, the south and east walls were also replaced at the southeast corner, as well as the windows in those locations. The architectural features on the primary (west) façade appear original. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–14 Access to the front entry is from the west façade, but the front door is on the east façade under the covered front porch (Plate 3.3–5). The porch is side-gabled and features a window on the west façade that has decorative keyhole scalloping above and an entryway opening with keyhole scalloping on the east façade (Plate 3.3–6). The west façade of the porch features battered, flared walls. The front door is a solid wood panel door with a metal security screen installed in front and is accessed via a concrete walkway with three steps (Plate 3.3–7). A stucco half-wall surrounds the uncovered portion of the front porch. Windows throughout the building are a mix of aluminum- and vinyl-framed, horizontal- sliding, single-hung, and fixed sash. The window on the west façade south of the front entry is single-hung aluminum sash and the window on the west façade north of the front entry exhibits a fixed, full elliptical, wood-framed window above an aluminum sash, horizontal-sliding window. A majority of the windows exhibit decorative wood frames that have been painted dark grey (Plates 3.3–8 to 3.3–10). The rear door on the east façade is a solid wood panel door with a metal security screen installed in front. The door is accessed via two concrete steps that lead to a concrete slab patio and is set under a metal-covered, wood-framed awning, which was constructed after 1966 (Plates 3.3–11 and 3.3–12). The roof is cut up with a flat roof over the main portion and two front-facing gables on the west façade that are covered in red tile roofing (see Plate 3.3–6). The flat-roofed portion of the building exhibits a stuccoed parapet with red tile trim. The roof of the addition is flat and exhibits exposed rafter tails along the edges (see Plate 3.3–12). Underneath the carport on the west façade is an additional entry door leading to the addition. The door is a solid wood-panel door with a metal security screen installed in front and is accessed via a set of wood steps (Plate 3.3–13). Also under the carport on the north façade of the original portion of the building is a single, wood-framed, fixed-pane window (Plate 3.3–14). This window appears to be the only remaining original window in the building. 3.3.3 Significance Evaluation CEQA guidelines (Section 15064.5) address archaeological and historic resources, noting that physical changes that would demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those characteristics that convey the historic significance of the resource and justify its listing on inventories of historic resources are typically considered significant impacts. Because demolition of the building within the project would require approval from the City of Fontana as part of the proposed project, CEQA eligibility criteria were used to evaluate the historic building. Therefore, criteria for listing on the CRHR were used to measure the significance of the resource. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–25 Integrity Evaluation When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of construction. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances, integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if a resource is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted. In order to determine whether or not the building is eligible for listing, CRHR eligibility criteria were used. Furthermore, BFSA based the review upon the recommended criteria listed in the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). This review is based upon the evaluation of integrity of the buildings followed by the assessment of distinctive characteristics. 1. Integrity of Location [refers to] the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of location was assessed by reviewing historical records and aerial photographs in order to determine if the building had always existed at its present location or if it had been moved, rebuilt, or its footprint significantly altered. Historical research revealed that the 5187 Sierra Avenue building was constructed in its current location between 1953 and 1958, and therefore, retains integrity of location. 2. Integrity of Design [refers to] the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the building and any architectural features present. The 5187 Sierra Avenue single-family residence was originally constructed between 1953 and 1958 in the Spanish Revival architectural style. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of an addition at the northeast corner of the building; construction of a carport onto the north façade; construction of a concrete patio and wood awning on the east façade; and replacement of all original windows with vinyl- and aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The addition onto the north façade altered the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property due to its size and the use of Contemporary-style elements and materials that differ from the Spanish Revival style of the building. Currently, the building is a mixture of Spanish Revival- and Contemporary-style elements with all but one of the original windows having been replaced with aluminum versions. Therefore, the building no longer conveys the appearance of a 1950s Spanish Revival-style residence and does not retain integrity of Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–26 design. 3. Integrity of Setting [refers to] the physical environment of a historic property. Setting includes elements such as topographic features, open space, viewshed, landscape, vegetation, and artificial features (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of setting was assessed by inspecting the elements of the property, which include topographic features, open space, views, landscape, vegetation, man-made features, and relationships between buildings and other features. The 5187 Sierra Avenue building was constructed between 1953 and 1956. During that time, the surrounding area was largely rural and vacant. Aerial photographs show the construction and removal of various structures behind the residence through the 1980s. By the mid-1990s, the area east of the property had been developed for residential homes and by the mid-2000s, the area to the southeast had been developed for a Target import/distribution center. By 2016, the Target center had expanded to the west and residential development had expanded north of the subject property. While commercial and residential development has occurred in the vicinity of the project since the 1950s, the area immediately surrounding the property has remained rural and vacant. Therefore, the property retains integrity of setting. 4. Integrity of Materials [refers to] the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of materials was assessed by determining the presence or absence of original building materials, as well as the possible introduction of materials that may have altered the architectural design of the building. The 5187 Sierra Avenue single-family residence was originally constructed between 1953 and 1958 in the Spanish Revival architectural style. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of an addition at the northeast corner of the building; construction of a carport onto the north façade; construction of a concrete patio and wood awning on the east façade; and replacement of all original windows with vinyl- and aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The materials used in the construction of the addition and the carport, and to replace the windows, are not associated with the Spanish Revival style but are instead reflective of the Contemporary style. Because these materials are representative of a different time period than the Spanish Revival style and the original configuration of materials has been altered, the 5187 Sierra Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. 5. Integrity of Workmanship [refers to] the physical evidence of the labor and skill of a particular culture or people during any given period in history (Andrus and Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–27 Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of workmanship was assessed by evaluating the quality of the architectural features present in the building. The original workmanship demonstrated by the construction of the 5187 Sierra Avenue residence appears to have been average. The building has been substantially modified since its initial construction as a Spanish Revival-style residence, and the addition and the carport exhibit a lower level of workmanship than the original building. In addition, while the keyhole openings and flared walls on the primary façade are unique, they are not representative of the labor and skill of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Therefore, the 5187 Sierra Avenue building does not possess integrity of workmanship. 6. Integrity of Feeling [refers to] a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of feeling was assessed by evaluating whether or not the resource’s features, in combination with its setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during the period of construction. As noted previously, the building retains integrity of setting and location; however, modifications made to the building since its initial construction have negatively impacted its ability to convey its historic date of construction. Therefore, the building does not retain integrity of feeling. 7. Integrity of Association [refers to] the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of association was assessed by evaluating the resource’s data or information and its ability to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the Fontana area or the state of California. Historical research indicates that the building is not associated with any significant persons or events. None of the individuals who owned or lived in the building were found to be significant and no known important events occurred at the property. Therefore, the building has never possessed integrity of association. The 5187 Sierra Avenue building was only determined to retain integrity of location but not integrity of design, materials, workmanship, or feeling. In addition, the building never possessed integrity of association. CRHR Evaluation For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, the resource must be found significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria: • CRHR Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–28 patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. It was discovered through historical research that no significant events could be associated with the 5187 Sierra Avenue building. Because the property could not be associated with any specific historic event, the building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 1. • CRHR Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Historical research revealed that the 5187 Sierra Avenue building is not associated with any persons important in our past. Therefore, the building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 2. • CRHR Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values. The 5187 Sierra Avenue single-family residence was constructed between 1953 and 1958 in the Spanish Revival architectural style. The Spanish Revival style is considered common for the region and was used in southern California from the 1920s until the 1940s. Spanish Revival-style elements, as indicated by McAlester (2015), include: “low-pitched roof, usually with little or no eave overhang; red tile roof covering; typically with one or more prominent arches placed above door or principal window, or beneath porch roof; wall surface usually stucco; wall surface extends into gable without break (eave or trim normally lacking beneath gable); façade normally asymmetrical.” More elaborate residences built in the Spanish Revival style will also exhibit dramatically carved doors emphasized by spiral columns, pilasters, carved stonework, or patterned tiles. They will also often possess at least one large focal window, which is generally triple-arched or parabolic in shape, often filled with stained glass. Decorative window grilles or balustrades are also common in high-style examples. More elaborate designs can include tile vents, decorative chimney tops, fountains, arcaded walkways, walled entry courtyards, twisted spiral columns, and round or square towers. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–29 The 5187 Sierra Avenue building exhibits all of the Spanish Revival-style elements listed by McAlester (2015), except for the low-pitched roof, since the front-gabled portions are moderately to steeply pitched. In addition, the residence features a large focal window on the primary (west) façade. While the residence does possess Spanish Revival characteristics, the modifications made to the building have altered the original form, plan, space, and style of the building through the addition of Contemporary-style elements. In addition, the period of significance for the Spanish Revival style in which the building was originally designed is from the 1920s to the 1940s. Since the building was constructed between 1953 and 1958, the building is not representative of the 1920s to 1940s period in which the Spanish Revival style is most significant. As such, the building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. In addition, modifications made to the building beginning in the 1960s negatively affected the building’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the building is not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. • CRHR Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The research conducted for this study revealed that because the 5187 Sierra Avenue building is not associated with any significant persons or events and was not constructed using unique or innovative methods of construction, it likely cannot yield any additional information about the history of Fontana or the state of California. Therefore, the building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 4. 3.4 Discussion/Summary During the field survey, one historic building was identified. The historic residence at 5187 Sierra Avenue has been recorded as Temp-1. No other cultural resources were observed during the survey. Site Temp-1 has been evaluated as not historically or architecturally significant under any CEQA criteria due to a lack of association with any significant persons or events and not being a representative example of any specific architectural style, period, or region. Because the building is not eligible for listing on the CRHR, no mitigation measures are required for any future alterations or planned demolition of the building. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–1 4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION 4.1 Resource Importance The cultural resources survey of the Sierra Business Center Project identified one historic building. The historic single-family residence at 5187 Sierra Avenue has been recorded as Temp- 1. The conclusion of the current assessment is that the building is not CEQA-significant or eligible for listing on the CRHR. The building has been thoroughly recorded and no additional information can be derived from further analysis. 4.2 Impact Identification The proposed development of the Sierra Business Center Project will include the demolition of the historic building. However, the removal of this building as part of the development of the property will not constitute an adverse impact because it has been evaluated as not CEQA-significant and not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The potential does still exist, however, that historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this location since the 1950s. To mitigate potential impacts to unrecorded historic features or deposits, mitigation monitoring is recommended. The mitigation monitoring program is presented in Section 5.0. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–1 5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Mitigation Measures The proposed development will impact one historic building; however, as this resource has been evaluated as lacking any further research potential, impacts have been determined to be not significant. Based upon the evaluation of the building as lacking further research potential, mitigation measures will not be required as a condition of approval for the project; however, a MMRP is recommended because grading may expose undocumented and potentially significant historic features or deposits associated with the historic occupation of the property since the 1950s. Evidence of Native American use of this location prehistorically may also be discovered. Based upon this potential, monitoring of grading is recommended to prevent the inadvertent destruction of any potentially important cultural deposits that were not observed or detected during the current cultural resources study. The monitoring program will include Native American observers only in the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered. 5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Sierra Business Center Project will disturb one nonsignificant historic resource (Temp- 1) that does not require any mitigation measures. However, to mitigate potential impacts to resources that have not yet been detected, a MMRP is recommended as a condition of approval. In accordance with direction from the City of Fontana Planning Division, the following guidance is presented as part of the MMRP condition: • In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological or Native American monitor, all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall assess the discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the following activities are initiated: o If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate consultation between the qualified archaeologist, the appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the City/project applicant; o Include the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural resources investigations as soon as possible; and o If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique archaeological resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 or a “tribal cultural resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–2 archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and subsequent implementation. The proposed MMRP tasks are detailed below. During Grading A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During Grading/Excavation/Trenching 1. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to archaeological resources. 2. The principal investigator (PI) may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency during construction requesting a modification to the monitoring program when a field condition such as modern disturbance post-dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. B. Discovery Notification Process 1. In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil- disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent resources and immediately notify the Native American monitor and client, as appropriate. 2. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless monitor is the PI) of the discovery. C. Determination of Significance 1. The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource. If human remains are involved, the protocol provided in Section D, below, shall be followed. a. The PI shall immediately notify the City of Fontana to discuss the significance determination and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional mitigation is required. b. If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval from the City of Fontana to implement that program. In the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered, the ADRP should also be reviewed by the Native American consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated before ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–3 c. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City of Fontana indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring report. The letter shall also indicate that that no further work is required. D. Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can be made regarding the provenance of the human remains; and the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be undertaken: 1. Notification a. The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI, if the monitor is not qualified as a PI. b. The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department after consultation with the City of Fontana, either in person or via telephone. 2. Isolate discovery site a. Work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a determination can be made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation with the PI concerning the provenance of the remains. b. The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a field examination to determine the provenance. c. If a field examination is not warranted, the sheriff-coroner will determine, with input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American origin. 3. If Human Remains ARE determined to be Native American a. The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, ONLY the medical examiner can make this call. b. The NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information. c. The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the sheriff-coroner has completed coordination to begin the consultation process in accordance Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–4 with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the State Health and Safety Code. d. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the human remains and associated grave goods. e. Disposition of Native American human remains will be determined between the MLD and the PI, and, if: i. The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD; OR ii. The MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC; OR iii. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner; THEN iv. Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground-disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree upon the appropriate treatment measures, the human remains and grave goods buried with the Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity. 4. If Human Remains are NOT Native American a. The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and notify them of the historic-era context of the burial. b. The sheriff-coroner will determine the appropriate course of action with the PI and city staff (PRC 5097.98). c. If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and conveyed to the City of Fontana. The decision for internment of the human remains shall be made in consultation with City, the applicant/landowner, and any known descendant group. Post-Construction A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report 1. The PI shall submit to the City of Fontana a draft monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–5 the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics). a. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the ADRP shall be included in the draft monitoring report. b. Recording sites with the State of California DPR shall be the responsibility of the PI, including the recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program. 2. The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report to the City of Fontana for approval, including any changes or clarifications requested by the City. B. Handling of Artifacts 1. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are cleaned and cataloged. 2. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate. 3. The cost for curation is the responsibility of the property owner. C. Curation of Artifacts 1. To be determined. D. Final Monitoring Report(s) 1. The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City of Fontana and any interested parties. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED The archaeological survey program for the Sierra Business Center Project was directed by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by field archaeologist Lucia Majel. The report text was prepared by Jillian Conroy, Jennifer Stropes, and Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Jillian Conroy. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Elena Goralogia. The SCCIC at CSU Fullerton provided the archaeological records search information and the NAHC provided the SLF search results. Archival research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the Fontana Historical Society, the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public Library. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–1 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Ancestry.com 2002 1930 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2004 1900 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2007a California, U.S., Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2007b California, U.S., Divorce Index, 1966-1984 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2010 1920 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012 U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2011a U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2011b California, U.S., Voter Registers, 1866-1898 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2017 California, U.S., County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Andrus, Patrick and Rebecca H. Shrimpton 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15. National Register of Historic Places. Anicic, John Charles, Jr. 1983 Historical Brief on Grapeland, Sierra Heights Development. Fontana Historical Society. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–2 1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society. Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California. Antevs, Ernst 1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California. Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8), California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith 1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie 1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California. Benedict, Ruth Fulton 1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3). Brigandi, Phil 1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California. Caughey, John W. 1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chapman, Charles E. 1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York. City of Fontana 2018a Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Approved and Adopted by City Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–3 Council November 13, 2018. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/ DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan- Documents-11-13-2018, accessed June 29, 2021. 2018b Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/ DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General- Plan-Update, accessed June 29, 2021. Cohen, K.M., and Gibbard, P.L. 2011 Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years. Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy), Cambridge, England. Electronic document, http://quaternary .stratigraphy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart-v2011.jpg.pdf, accessed June 29, 2021. Conford, Danial (editor) 1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, California. Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Curray, Joseph R. 1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Daily Courier 1891 Real Estate Transfers. 7 November:3. San Bernardino, California. De Barros, Philip 1987 Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment of Tentative Tract 13639, Northwest Rialto Specific Plan, City of rialto, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. Dice, Michael 2006 Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment and Paleontological Records Review, Renaissance Specific Plan Project, rialto, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–4 Drucker, Philip 1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records 1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley. Dutcher, L.C. and Garrett, A.A. 1963 Geologic and hydrologic features of the San Bernardino area, California – with special reference to underflow across the San Jacinto fault. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1419. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San Francisco, California. Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors) 1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Fagan, B. 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson. London. Gallegos, Dennis 1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1). 2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gunther, Jane D. 1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California. Hall, William Hammond 1888 The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties: The Second Part of the Report of the State Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation Question. State Office, J.D. Young, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento. Heizer, Robert F. (editor) 1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–5 D.C. Inman, Douglas L. 1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Kielbasa, John 1997 Historic Adobes of Los Angeles County. Dorrance Publishing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kroeber, A.L. 1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Martin, P.S. 1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974. Masters, Patricia M. 1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1–A19. Infotec Research, Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California. McAlester, Virginia Savage 2015 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. McGrew, Clarence Alan 1922 City of San Diego and San Diego County, The Birthplace of California. The American Historical Society, Chicago and New York. McLean, Deborah and Jani Monk 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Kaiser West End Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 12+PP. LSA. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–6 Miller, J. 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis on file at the University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Morton, D.M. 2003 Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-418, scale 1:24,000. Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K. 2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000. Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1– 46. North County Times 1991 Adeline Pauline White. 25 April:123. Oceanside, California. Patterson, Tom 1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California. Pourade, Richard F. 1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. 1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. Reddy, Seetha 2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego Museum of Man. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–7 Rolle, Andrew F. 1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. SAIC 1983 Site Survey Report for DERP-FUDS Site #J09CA057200, Rialto Ammunition Storage Point. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. San Bernardino County Sun 1936 Ranch Speaks to Hub City Rotarians. 12 September:113. San Bernardino, California. 1965 Remy’s Riding Stable Advertisement. 9 March:24. San Bernardino, California. 1978 Man is shot by accident. 22 September:37. San Bernardino, California. 1980 Five persona meet violent end over weekend. 16 June:11. San Bernardino, California. 1991 Colton firefighters uncover drug laboratory, arrest house’s resident. 20 February:10. San Bernardino, California. Schneider, Joan S. 1989 A Report of the Archaeological Monitoring of Brush-Removal Operations on Tract 13780, of Master Tract 13639, Known as Las Colinas, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Strong, William Duncan 1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley. Sturm, Bradley L., Jani Monk, and Ivan H. Strudwick 1995 Cultural Resources Survey & National Register Assessment of the Kaiser Steel Mill for the California Speedway Project, Fontana, CA. LSA. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections 2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–8 Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding 1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science 204:701–710. Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic 1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batequitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246–338. Wirths, Todd A. 2022 Paleontological Assessment for the Sierra Business Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 0239-151-09, -19, -25, -26, -36, and -38). Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. World Forestry Center 2017 Andrew Jackson Pope (1820-1978). Electronic document, https://www.worldforestry .org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/POPE-ANDREW-JACKSON.pdf, accessed February 26, 2019. Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A Resumes of Key Personnel Brian F. Smith, MA Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982 Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975 Professional Memberships Society for California Archaeology Experience Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Professional Accomplishments These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in the Southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted. Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2 Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001). 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014). San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018). Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area. Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area (2017). The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015). Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017). Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007). 4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns. Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego. Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study. City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the city and county of San Diego. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- September 2002. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4 for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5 Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000. Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000. Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor— included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999. Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999. Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997- January 2000. Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995. Jennifer R.K. Stropes, MS, RPA Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 484-0915 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: jenni@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Science, Cultural Resource Management Archaeology 2016 St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology 2004 University of California, Santa Cruz Specialized Education/Training Archaeological Field School 2014 Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project Research Interests California Coastal / Inland Archaeology Zooarchaeology Historic Structure Significance Eligibility Historical Archaeology Human Behavioral Ecology Taphonomic Studies Experience Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. November 2006–Present Writing, editing, and producing cultural resource reports for both California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act compliance; recording and evaluating historic resources, including historic structure significance eligibility evaluations, Historical Resource Research Reports, Historical Resource Technical Reports, and Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record preparation; faunal, prehistoric, and historic laboratory analysis; construction monitoring management; coordinating field surveys and excavations; and laboratory management. UC Santa Cruz Monterey Bay Archaeology Archives Supervisor Santa Cruz, California December 2003–March 2004 Supervising intern for archaeological collections housed at UC Santa Cruz. Supervised undergraduate interns and maintained curated archaeological materials recovered from the greater Monterey Bay region. Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 2 Faunal Analyst, Research Assistant University of California, Santa Cruz June 2003–December 2003 Intern assisting in laboratory analysis and cataloging for faunal remains collected from CA-MNT-234. Analysis included detailed zoological identification and taphonomic analysis of prehistoric marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish inhabiting the greater Monterey Bay region. Archaeological Technician, Office Manager Archaeological Resource Management January 2000-December 2001 Conducted construction monitoring, field survey, excavation, report editing, report production, monitoring coordination and office management. Certifications City of San Diego Certified Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor 40-Hour Hazardous Waste/Emergency Response OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (e) Scholarly Works Big Game, Small Game: A Comprehensive Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered from CA-SDI-11,521, 2016, Master’s thesis on file at St. Cloud University, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Technical Reports Kraft, Jennifer R. 2012 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Pottery Court Project (TPM 36193) City of Lake Elsinore. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center. Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith 2016 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1492 K Street Project City of San Diego. Prepared for Trestle Development, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2016 Focused Historic Structure Assessment for the Fredericka Manor Retirement Community City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California APN 566-240-27. Prepared for Front Porch Communities and Services – Fredericka Manor, LLC. Report on file at the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. 2016 Historic Structure Assessment for 8585 La Mesa Boulevard City of La Mesa, San Diego County, California. APN 494-300-11. Prepared for Silvergate Development. Report on file at the City of La Mesa Planning Department. Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 3 2016 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane Project City of San Diego Project No. 471873 APN 344-030-20. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Beacon Apartments Project City of San Diego Civic San Diego Development Permit #2016-19 APN 534-210-12. Prepared for Wakeland Housing & Development Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the State/Columbia/Ash/A Block Project San Diego, California. Prepared for Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 687B Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Cultural Resource Testing Results for the Broadway and Pacific Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for BOSA Development California, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Historic Structure Assessment for the StorQuest Project, City of La Mesa, (APN 494-101-14-00). Prepared for Real Estate Development and Entitlement. Report on file at the City of La Mesa. 2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1905 Spindrift Remodel Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Brian Malk and Nancy Heitel. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Cisterra Sempra Office Tower Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for SDG-Left Field, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Results of a Cultural Resources Testing Program for the 15th and Island Project City of San Diego. Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Cesar Chavez Community College Project. Prepared for San Diego Community College District. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Grantville Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Cass Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pacific Beach Row Homes Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Armstrong Builders, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 761 Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 770 Project (Part of Group Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 4 3014), City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 11950 El Hermano Road, Riverside County. Prepared for Forestar Toscana, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center. 2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 161 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, California (Project No. 342196; APN 666-030-09). Prepared for Blue Key Realty. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Historic Structure Assessment for 8055 La Mesa Boulevard, City of La Mesa (APN 470-582-11-00). Prepared for Lee Machado. Report on file at the City of La Mesa. 2014 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Watson Land Company. Report on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. 2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Celadon (9th and Broadway) Project. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Comm 22 Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Pinnacle 15th & Island Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Pinnacle International Development, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Altman Residence Project, 9696 La Jolla Farms Road, La Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Steve Altman. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase III Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation General Engineering Contractors. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase IIIA Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the F Street Emergency Water Main Replacement Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Orion Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Old Town Community Church Project, 2444 Congress Street, San Diego, California 92110. Prepared for Soltek Pacific, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Historic Structure Assessment, 2603 Dove Street, San Diego, California (APN) 452-674-32). Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 5 Prepared for Barzal and Scotti Real Estate Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Historic Structure Assessment at the Western Christian School, 3105 Padua Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 (APN 8671-005-053). Prepared for Western Christian School. Report on file at the City of Claremont. 2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 7th and F Street Parking Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for DZI Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1919 Spindrift Drive Project. Prepared for V.J. and Uma Joshi. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. Smith, Brian F. and Jennifer R. Kraft 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2314 Rue Adriane Building, San Diego, California Project No. 460562. Prepared for the Brown Studio. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4921 Voltaire Street Building, San Diego, California Project No. 471161. Prepared for Sean Gogarty. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 5147 Hilltop Drive Building, San Diego, California Project No. 451707. Prepared for JORGA Home Design. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the Midway Drive Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center 2535 Midway Drive San Diego, California 92138 Project No. 507152. Prepared for Steelwave, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historic Resource Technical Report for 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane La Jolla, California Project No. 471873. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Urban Discovery Academy Project. Prepared for Davis Reed Construction, Inc. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 520 West Ash Street Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1919 Pacific Highway Project City of San Diego City Preliminary Review PTS #451689 Grading and Shoring PTS #465292. Prepared for Wood Partners. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Historical Resource Research Report for 16929 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California. Prepared for Rancho Bernardo LHP, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2002-2004 El Cajon Boulevard Building, San Diego, Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 6 California 92014. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4319-4321 Florida Street Building, San Diego, California 92104. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Historic Resource Technical Report for 726 Jersey Court San Diego, California Project No. 455127. Prepared for Chad Irwin. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Islenair Historic Sidewalk Stamp Program for Sewer and Water Group 3014, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Historical Resource Research Report for 2850 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, California (Project No. 392445). Prepared for Zephyr Partners – RE, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. Smith, Brian F., Tracy A. Stropes, Tracy M. Buday, and Jennifer R. Kraft 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1900 Spindrift Drive – Cabana and Landscape Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1912 Spindrift Drive – Landscape Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. Stropes, J.R.K. and Brian F. Smith 2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4143 Park Boulevard Building, San Diego, California 92103. Prepared for Bernardini Investments, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 6375 Avenida Cresta Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for Jeffrey and Anne Blackburn. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 915 Grape Street Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Bayview SD, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2019 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Grove Residences Project, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Beach City Builders, Inc. Report on file at the County of San Diego. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report for the 169 and 171 Fifth Avenue Buildings, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Turner Impact Capital. Report on file at the City of Chula Vista. 2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 1409 South El Camino Real Building, San Clemente, California. Prepared for Shoreline Dental Studio. Report on file at the City of San Clemente. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 212 West Hawthorn Street Building, San Diego, California 92101. Prepared for Jacob Schwartz. Report on file at the City of San Diego. Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 7 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 1142-1142 ½ Prospect Street Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for LLJ Ventures. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3000-3016 University Avenue/3901-3915 30th Street Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for Cirque Hospitality. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 125 Mozart Avenue Building, Cardiff, California. Prepared for Brett Farrow. Report on file at the City of Encinitas. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Santa Ana Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at the California South Central Coastal Information Center. 2019 Historical Resource Technical Report for 817-821 Coast Boulevard South, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Design Line Interiors. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3829 Texas Street Building, San Diego, California 92014. Prepared for Blue Centurion Homes. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2018 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3925-3927 Illinois Street Building, San Diego, California 92104. Prepared for Park Pacifica, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego. Contributing Author /Analyst 2015 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Site SDI-10,237 Locus F, Everly Subdivision Project, El Cajon, California by Tracy A. Stropes and Brian F. Smith. Prepared for Shea Homes. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2011 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for A Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-4606 Locus B for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for An Archaeological Study for the 1912 Spindrift Drive Project, La Jolla, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for Island Architects. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Results of a Cultural Mitigation and Monitoring Program for Robertson Ranch: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Camps near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by Brian F. Smith. Prepared for McMillan Land Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2009 Faunal Identification for “An Earlier Extirpation of Fur Seals in the Monterey Bay Region: Recent Findings and Social Implications” by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez and Charlotte K. Sunseri. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 21, 2009 Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B Site Record Form (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX C Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX D NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX E Historic Documents Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Building Development Information CHARACTERISTICS REPORT FOR PARCEL 1118-031-08-0000 Property Information Management System San Bernardino County Office of the Assessor Land Characteristics Zoning Lot Width Lot Depth Footage Gross Acre Net Acre 86.00 560.00 48160 1.106 0.000 NONE NONE Access PUBLIC PAVED Direction Degree Quality SewerCHECK SLOPE NONE NONE Dock Rights NONE NONE Water PUBLIC Electricity Gas Offsite Improvements Encroachment/Easement OVERHEAD NONE CHECK NONE NONE Lease Exp Utilities Type NONE Slope ViewSpecial Influence Nuisance Code Effective Dates: 06/07/1989 - present ACTIVE ASSESSED BY COUNTY SFR PUBLIC PAVED 20,000 SQ. FEET TO 1.500 ACRES FONTANA REAL PROPERTY RES ZONE(MAX 14 UTS)&USE EX HPC/MHM(1- 14 UTS,CHURC 1118031080000 Property ID Parcel Status Tax Status Use Code Land Access Land Type Size District Resp Group Resp Unit Parcel SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Parcel Type REAL PROPERTY Characteristics Property Information Management System1/14/2022 10:11:58 AM 1 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor SFR Characteristics Sequence 1 Construction Type Quality Shape Cost Table MH Make/Model D FRAME 045 A A CONVENTIONAL Size Construction Year 1157 1927 Funct. Obsolesence %0 Economic Obsolesence % Deferred Maintenance Floor 1 Floor 2 0 0 902 AC RCN Heating Effective Year 1927 Number of Baths Number of Bedrooms Family Room/Den Total Room Roof Type 1.00 2 0 5 BUILT UP, COMPOSITION Landscape Quality Functional Obsolesence AVERAGE NONE 720 WALL/FLOOR NONE 0 0 2620 0 NONE 00 00 00 0 Time Share Season Cost Modifier 100 Floor 3 Basement 1 Basement 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cooling Fireplace RCN Number of Fireplaces Yard Improvement RCN Misc. RCN Pool RCN Pool Type Special Improvement RCN Special Improvement 1 Special Improvement 2 Special Improvement 3 MH Foundation LF MH Foundation Type 0 0MH Skirt LF MH Skirt Type MH Siding Addition 1 Addition 2 Addition 3 255 75 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Size Factor Stall Class Deck Port Garage Porch 1 Porch 2 Porch 3 270 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 324 0 0 1 DETACHED FRAME CONSTRUCTION 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Size Factor Stall Class Effective Dates: 06/07/1989 - present Other Characteristics Property Information Management System1/14/2022 10:11:58 AM 2 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor No Other Characteristics Property Information Management System1/14/2022 10:11:58 AM 3 of 3 Page(s) San Bernardino County Assessor CITY OF FONTANA CITY CLERK’S OFFICE 8353 SIERRA AVENUE, FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92335 (909) 350-7602 | WWW. FONTANA.ORG FEBRUARY 24, 2022 VIA EMAIL jenni@bfsa-ca.com Re: Public Records Act Request Received February 14, 2022 Dear Ms. Stropes: On February 14, 2022, the City of Fontana received your request for Public Records, made under the California Public Records Act (Gov Code §§ 6250-6276.48). In your request you have requested the following. 1. I would like to request digital copies of building permits and plans for the building located at 5187 Sierra Avenue. In Response: 1. Attached are responsive documents. Sincerely, Ashton R. Arocho Ashton R. Arocho, MMC, CPMC Deputy City Clerk n Z'. fi--- T- t 7b r r rz roi -o 41 lid I inl Ir 7b r r rz 41 Ir VN el 57 tr LK" Lr 7b r r rz 41 Ir VN el 57 tr G -IAA IA it; IAI A vj 7-- rz I 4 AJ 70 2 Y1 IT In TN Xv N iSte. 2 Y1 In 2 Y1 ILI WTI 4^'`-.. , moi`, ..; ,.; ` _:' \ ' L _ '^- r- < '' - fit cl, LA Tb k,Y CN CA 7V) 77 f i 3y C/1 CA341 7- 7A r 07-0 V) ri o19. r- CAI 01UC.-) p" ri o19. r- 1 UC.-) p" ri Application for Building Permit CITY OF FONTANA 8353 SIERRA AVE. FONTANA, CA 92335 909) 350-7640 INSPECTION REQUEST'S 909) 350-7693 Job Address: 5187 Sierra Ave Owner: Donald R Lance 4755 Phillips Blvd ONTARIO, CA 91762 Contractor: OVeN ER -BUILDER License Details: LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION Ireal ercem an., penalty ofperjury Net l em licensed under provisions ofChapter 9(commencing with Section ofOidered 3 of Ne Businessand Prafesschs Code, and my leence blit full fore and effect, Signature OWNER - BUILDER DECLARATION I bereby eMrm antler Penalty of penury tet I em emi firm the Commodore Spite licerace tons, far the followingreason (Sec 703 Let Business and Prlessions Code: Any city or county that requires a perm. W construct, after, improve, central o repair any sVucWre, prior to R Issuance, eko requires the applicant for Me permit to file a signed statement that a orshe is licensed pursuant to Me promwra of the Contractors Sao License taw (Chapter9 (commaming with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he or she k exempt th mfom and the base far the our exemption, AnyvbMtbn of Sacfwn 7031.6 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not mare tM1en huMreddo 11 (ESOo).)' yyrfI es owner of the propeM• or my employees with wages n Nair sake compensation, will do the work, and Me structure n not Intended or offered for sake (Stu. You, Business and Professions Code. The Combee r' Spite License taw does nor appy pe a. Owner of propel who builds or Improves thereon, and who does such work final or herself or through he on her awn employeae, provided Met such improvemerM1 ere not intended or of rcaa far eek. If, howawn the bullalrp or improv.m.nt'a said within one year of completion, the ownenbolider will new the burden of proving mat he or she ala nor build Imorprw farmpurposeepuOae at sa. L]owner of the propM, em exclusively contracting with focused contractors to construct the project ISec. 70", Business and Professions Code: The Contractors' Stats Use... Lew does net apply W ea owner Of propady who builds or improves thmeon, and who Cartel per such projack wild . contrecbrp) licensed puradjnt W me Contractors' Spike Licence. taw). I em exempt under Sec. B. BPC. for the reason hereby affirm antler Penalty of perjury one ofthe allowing tledem0onz. Imo, and will maintain a ceN4cete of consent to selklnscre, for workers[ at, as provided for by Section 3700 of me taWrCode. for tM1e peMrmence of In waM lorwhichN[ epeeie ed- I have and will marecon workers c pens ttlI' sure. quid by Season 37W of In. Labor Code, for the peroemence of lM1e wvM per wM1eM1 lhej PT6OSVed. My workers'compensation lnsurancecamof and policy number are'. Nt Permit Type: Plumbing Permit Permit Number: PMT06-02282 Issue Date: 03121/2006 Type of Const Code Year. 2001 Occupancy Group(s): Fire Sprinkler. Use Class: Residential # of Stories: Tract #: Lot #: APN NO.: 0239151090000 Specific Plan: NONEfCITYWDE Property Faces: S e t B a c k s: Residential Area: Front Rear. L v g : Left- Right Garage: Valuation: WOO Description: t 1 PERMIT FOR WATER HEATER CHANGE -OUT 30 GAL. Architects/Ennineer ID:Name: License: Fee Summary: Fee Details: ARCHIVE PWmbin4 Permit ,. Total 2.00 I 35.80 Paid 2.00 35.80 Due 3.00 0.00 Fee Totals: 137.83 137.60 WOO t 1 it t r 1 CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE The seean need not ber completed it the permit a far one hundred dollars (SIOO) or less.) I card, that In the performance of the work for which the permit a ba.. I shell nor employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers .. mpromise nlawsof Cahernla, andagree that al shouNyeCQ subjecrWNewo ascompenserionprovkions of Section 37Wof the Labor Code.Ishell fall comply won toos`A\prokiena. ' Oete Appfcenr_ - _ _ jf, NOTICE TO APPt1CANT If, Mr king the Can 1 Exemption, as should become ubper b me Workers' Compensation provaiona of the LaborCotle, you must bObwild comply with h provisions; or the permitshag be doomed rewked, WARNING. Failure to secure warkns comconsWeancoverageaunwlul, and shell subject an employer to cnmiml penalties end curl Ones up the one hundred Thousand callers (3100,00d, In sell W the cost of compensebon, damages as provided No In section 3708 of the labor code, interest and attorneys bee. hereby eKrre under penaltyof penury thatthere'. a construction lending agency for the performance of the work he permit a clause (Sec. 3097, CivCJ. Name HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DECLARATION Will Me applicant or future building occupant ha ON a bemrdoue mapiel aro e miapre containing . homrmus material equa fa ar S ewer reit me -meson- YES NOspecMedontheHezarMusMotorolaInformationGurtle? I Will me proposed building be within IWO feet of Me ower boundary m a schopo YES rNO It 'YES' b any ofMeacres, you mustobtain proper permits from South Coast An Quality Management lyepermits are NOT asocial provides" Non atetemenr h9^r'irqusliy agency INES'roanyorfd above conk=$6nB:rne"c". Ceunry,jl4...ntof Ermronmentel Heefth Servlcs,385N.ArmwhmdFirstFlrorPublicCounter, Sen Berrdo CA924150180 0 387 W" NOTE: Owner sell be reaponabs per the legj actual phpgel serbaclo from the property line as required by Cityordinance. The permit will expire it work a not commenced within 180 days alter the data of Issuance, or II work 'a suspended for 180 drys, or per City ordinance. The issuance ofthis perms end/or approval of plain, specifications and/or computations shall not be construed to perms, or approve, any vbpilon of any provision of any Slob. County or CM code, Ordinance or law Permits presuming b One eNM1onry b violate or cancel the pmveipm of such codas, crdfnerces or laws shall not be vafd DOHEREBY AGREE that all wedk In connection wish this Building 8 Safety Division permit shall comply withall the laws and requirements of Ne SUte of California. herein called the Stare, and the Cay or Fontana, Name called the ply, and I hobby ceniy mthatInporcurnmereoraidwork, I stall not malate any Slate lawioincludingpromsns far wrrkmans' compensation insurance, I amryumend other regulations .1 1. Scom I agree 10 rwld the City harmless from any and ell liability for porsonal mryry andor' pel damage used by any work done by m my employees. agency o representauves on the premise I agree anal this permit shall not make the City subject to any claim for liability arising from any work done thereunder nit I agree to pay IM amount of such claim against Orin City . (I cedfy that I heves reed In. epplbeton and ..to that the above information acorrect Iagw W campy withaltdCountry ordemades andSlate laws relating to building construction. and hereby authe im represent a of the City upon the aboyqentioned property far Inspection purposes.) LSL U t 61-9 f Application for Building Permit CITY OF FONTANA o 8353 SIERRA AVE. n ri n FONTANA, CA 92335 lr J 909)350-7640 INSPECTION REQUESTS 909) 350-7693 0 7 .crr /vc • O y7a55 /ell 417 Z LICENSED4CONTR ficemeherebyaffirmunderpenalrydperjurytis provisions d Chapter 8 (command wkh 3ectbn ]OW) d Chrism 3 d the Business and Prof ode, in full force and effect. License Class License No In Contractor Signet" OWNER- BUILDER DECLARATIO1jV` I hereby affirm under porelty of perjury that I em exempt from the Contractors Limmam Lsw'*t4 following reason gi c. 7031.5, Bwlrese and Profession Cab: Any city or count' which requires a pamre to,. e31er, improve, demolialr, a repair any structure, poor to as Issuance, also requires the applicant fa each peme tilts , statMnd that he a WRis . licensed prosum tothe prov'iebre d the Cotseadohe Liceree Law (Chapter 9 (cpaltlbnaf hp Seq o 700giafitN(sIon 3dtheBusinessandProlessianeCode) or that he or she is exenryl therefrorm*,*`the bosh for9ro t"Biiengion. Am/ violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for it permit subjects the applicabli a civil paAailly of not 1416M than live hundred dollars ($500).): I, As ownaa of the pmpedy, or my employees with wages as ihemfdl rYleconpensala1w11Ftkapha work and the dhudure is notIntendedoroffered fanab (Sec. 7044, Business and Proflonq dCadic The pgrprpolore hicsnse Lew doe. not appytoanownerdpropendwhobuild$ or improves thereon, andwho ch ejssuch Walk Itirq orheyllaltor through his or her own employees, provided that such improvements aro not intended mattered for anPs, I1L*cvvwmr, the er YApa'vemed re wld within one yeard completion, the owner -builder will have t1Wrtklleaev11ha1 M a ahe iMpr hplpXb for the purpose d ads.). I, as owner of the property, sm exclusively ccntractrngliew9h kaaneadgtlplidoe 1s, 9proodd thtb n esrysgl i3ec 701, Busins and Professions Coda: The Contredom License dgt adiplI ttb an Vtd w(itbulldeorlmprovsethereon, and whocontracts tosuch projects with contractntrect) jke rdl(uaMlt'ihe s Ykt.IrjT). Iam exempt under Sec BAP" bride raa ^ WORKERS' CO AT , A I herebyaffirm under penalty of perjury onsof thefollowing deMpre ' I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to sell re for wodtep'' o r'V'1111 phoddid jiby 31M.1ba2YpD': of the Labor Code, for the performance of do work to whicElhpJaV I have and mpensaam insu ' , s requir, Section 370Q pin pt' labor tqr IM Performanceof rk for whloh this permit is issue oro enia6hat meree cad flYlgjftl y ilik" Caller - Policy 446 !• Spreture CERTIFICATE OF EXE Ai 71Oft PRQ ' WORKERS' COMPENSATIOI INS R,ANCE This section need not be completed 0 the permit is for one hu dollars (5"lced3y OWin the pe, domior of the work for which this permit is issued, I shill not employ person in anY me b to secome..Auhject to the waken' co perw0on laws of California, and agree that 0 1 s me subject t walkert'cdlpenW3Mprovbiore of Sectim 3700d the Labor Cod., I shall forthwith comply wt provemons. t,nz I)'f ,= on icats: NOTICE TO APPLICANT: ff, eller this Carel a Exempt u a=1d b oma aubjid to the Worms" Ox"reatlon provisions d the LaborCods, you must forthwith coney such provisions orthis permit shall be deemed revoked. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensatlon coverage u un , end shall subject an employer to criminal pereltbs and civilfines up toane hundred thousand dolbhe ($100.000), in addition tothe coalof compensation, damages as provided I" settlor, 3703 of ata labor code, Internal and atomeys fees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY 1 hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that there is aconstruction lending agars npeffER me of the work for which this permit Is issued (Sec. 3007, CN. C.). Lenders Name Lenders Address Signature of Applicants orAgent Date HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DECLARATIONWeltheapplicantorfuturebulkingoccupanthandleahazardousmaterialore mixture containing a hazardous material equal to or greater than the amounts YES NO specified on the Hazardous Materials Information Guide? WEtheproposedbuilding be within 1000feel d Me cuter boundary da school? El YES L_'iIVO It'YES'to any ofthe above, you must oda. r permits from South CoastAliQuality Management. If airpor its she NOT required, provide a written statement froma alky agency If 'VES' to erry d the above, cased: Bernardino 0. Department of EnvimnmeMel Health Services, 385 N. Anmwhsa6Fksl Floor Publico er, no, CA 92 130.(909) 387304. Owner or ANMr¢ed AgeX NOTE: OWNER SHALL BE RESPOIArBLE FOR LEGAL ACTUAL PHYSICAL SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINE AS REWIRED BY ORDINANCE OF THE F FONTA Building Permits ah, subject to expirotlon 8 w rend commenced wdhn 180 days after date of issuance or ff work's suspended for ISO days. DO HEREBY AGREE that all work in connection with this Building and Safety Department Permit shall comply with all the laws, and requirements of the City of Fontana, hereinafter called City, and I hereby calcify the in performance of said work, I ehep not violate any taw of the State of Celilamu, including provisions for Wabmans' Compensation lmuaree, licenses end other regulations of the State. I agree to held the City harmless from any and all liability impersonal injury end property damage caused by any wok done by me, my employees, agents or representatives on the premises. I agree that this permit shag not maks the City subject b anyclaim for iabilky arising from any work dons thereunder and I agree to pay the amuurd of suds claim against the City (I certiy That I have road application and that the information given b corrad. I agree to cor pt' with all slab laws and Cry oMinamos r:Ie in ilding construct nd aulhor¢e a repreeentative d theCity d Fortune, Department d Building and Safety to anter Property for have applied for this pemd for In, purpose d nregng kepsdbn.) y Dale 5greture X MeilingAddress OFFICE oolod'3y Zss UG cif / C O—ZS'o0 Lodc t',2. 1997 f10A-' 023 9/5/0 9 Moore Pei' Pe rrr. P © . TILQC ' OTT moa — a as p3} ara-^ i resere aseep+jlllaav'c-0"0.. o 2 — ZZ CPO O JOB CARD PERMIT NO. NO. OPERATION DATE INSPECTOR BUILDING APPROVALS 1 Set Backs 2 Spec.Inspection 3 Ft s. & Forms 4 Slab Grade 5 Steel 6 Grout Blocks 7 Bond Beams 8 Roof Deck 9 Framing_ 10 Insulation Walls 11 Vents 12 Gar. Firewall 13 Fireplace PL 14 Ext. Lath 15 Int. Lath 16 Drywall 17 Insul. Ceiling Batts 18 Insul. Ceiling Blown ig Ext. Gradin ZL Pool Pre unite 21 Pool Fence Gate 22 Mobile Home Set -u 23 OCC Insp. Shear Panel Hold Downs T -Bar 24 FINAL PLUMBING APPROVALS Grd. Plumbing Water Piping Rough Plumbing Vents Sewage Disposal 30 Sewer Water Heater 42 Water Softner 33 Water Service 34 jGasTest 35 of r 11 Sewer C.O. 36 1 FINAL ELECTRICAL APPROVALS 37 38 39 Power Pole Conduit Service Entrance z %.& no 40 Wiring 41 Grounding Wire 42 Bonding 43 44 Fixtures Service DU D P 45 OCC Sin 46 FINAL Jb MECHAWCAL APPROVALS 47 Ventilation S stem 4 Plenums & Duds i3 4 Furnace Com art. Inlets - Outlets Combustion Air Com ressor Appliance Clear 54 Fire Damper Smoke Detec. Device 56 Commercial Hood 57 FINAL 58 PERMIT FINAL 59 APP CORR CERT. OF OCC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ROUGH 2 1 FINAL OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVALS ROUGH FINAL THER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEWAGE SYSTEM SIZE & LOCATION Tank Pit Leach Line REAR OF PROPERTY LINE COOKIE ED Application for Building Permit ra Y. Pe W.Mo.: B0000671 Issue Date:,051254995 ICIT DF FONTANA Permit Ex P.Date: 11/21/1995 POST OFFICE BOX 518, Pro:6ect::1 5-3566FONTANA, CA 9233 Codes.- 1991,: 909) 350-7640 1 FrER HOURS INSPECTION REQUESTA ftirtittype.. BLDS COMBINATION PERMIT 909) 350-7693 Type of Construction: V -N job Address: 5197 SIERRA AVE i Occupancy Group(s): R-3 Use Zone: R71 # of Stories, I Owner: LANG DONALD R Tract,No.: Lot No.: 14755 PHILLIPS BLVD Apkft..10239 151-090000 ONTARID, CA 71762 YARDS:Property Faces: N/A Front: N14 Phone:109-628-2975 Rear. N/A Left: N/A Right: NIA:, CONTRACTOR! OWNERIBUILDER FIRE:SPRINKLERS: N iBy Ordinance: For Area: For1crupancy. Nildingj,:Area; 1247 Valuation: 28,000.100 P-h-onei. Lirensk;*iber. 000000 License Numbir: DESCRIPTION. DAMAGE REPAIR AND ATTACHED CARPORTDQINTRACTOR_DECLARATION; .-FEE SUMMARY:. arby of perjuryihat I am licensed under provisions of Chapter. 9 (commencing with Saction 70w) Arvism. . ofn1h.... rofessioni, Code, and W license Is Infull force and affect. BUILDINSIPPERNIT, 52400-4801 (2103) 291.50 License No- ELECTRICALIFERMIT 52400-4005 (2105), ::Q2.15License Date Covtrocto, HE ICAL,PERMIT 52400-4807 (2106) 35.50 T 52400-4803 (2104) 72. N I harab affirIn,underpa" ofku . rythe I LNLR '56.00Yi52300-4825 .(6046) OW:NER -'BUILDER DECLARATI' i I " exempt frotn tho r raractors License to] 7031.6 Buoinesl and Prafesslor s Code: At* cfty orcounty which requires a perms to q0 a r, il o Ii pr 52300-4453 (6004) '176.48repairanystructure. prior to its issuance, also requires the for permit to ap-gp d' `Wffig (' applicant such "I , 1 r licensed phusuant to the provisions of the Coraractm License Low, 72111 ;' . n t h or.' LAN qpjl'. on 7 1 3 `:52300-4453 (6004) PLUof -the Business and Profassiom Coda) or that he or she is "*no b ECK 13.13Cor9 violation ofSection 7o3i,sby anyawlicard fora parnift subjects the F thanfive hu' 'ISZ00-4453 (6004)... NICAL PL*JW# .3.811dollars (M)J Won. w; as ,,,PL4 CHECK Y:" 52300-4453 (6004) 1.5.54liasowneroftheproperty, or my employe id'P6 (6007) Is not Intended & offensd for sale: (Sao. 7044i Business and PrOessions CodaJho Gpr4,paors EN61KEERIN CHECanownerofpropaftywhobuildsorimipro;tas thereon, and who doqs surh wA himseil'or harsat t his or herown "N, .22.00 4,6, . . employees, provided that such imPloVemands ans not intended or offered for sat ", er. be imptoveme!ff Is ;81240-4615!J702Q) .00Ah0rshd,, nor builri Or 16rsoldwithinoneyearof, cc lotion the owner -builder will have thp'burd.nof,proo, the pUrPD sale.). t6k.1WNL : 53720-46271,'[9006) .00dlr g, . 5 .00Ll1, as, owner of !he property, am.oxc!usivaly, contraoting4ft'Icansfl pl ii, ha io, 7044, Business and P!Fossions Code: -The Corrrrgctora Licanse La 0,661 aq y I now & Y,...WIDE 537204S 5 ("O la C -4621' ("16) tlheroon ,'Jmprovoa 00 L3 I am exempt under See- 500 2509 45C) .00 kCL .00 L 2 S -4863 (2126) .00 RTW! Oslo. 53860 4633 17afkAfTEL- 7 _,._ 00_- ___ W 0 _K' -8 "A" V_ L 7ih- -- '' A— ENSAMNIM '11-ATION 0 7) I hereby affirm under ponalty of perjury one of tho following dwlamfions:, z 1,1 ,1 43) 2.80 J PARK.- EY (70241 .00 60-485`7:!(A22) .00fIRE 2400-44,95 039). 1.50, PIC M j2124) 00 . . . ... . . . . . . J" 0 FE (2131) Policy .00PolicyPolIcY 151340-4837 (2130) .00CERTIFICAMWEXEMPTIOW'000941,, T 7:-SPEdk$Af'174100-4050 (1031) 13350-4477 (6010) .00 - WORKERS! COMPENSATIO Oft' 4p., , -: I i: I . 1'11 Qf;, , , Wr, Pis soctlowneed nat be completed V the pam* is for one hundred dollars ($1 fcerlily:fhari I toIt00) orli o, ISI`EtTli*4EE,53200-4469 (6011) .00Oftheworkorwhich, this pormil is issued, I shall not employ any person in any morn FE,,JtrialJaicttothe .11 bJ : J ... W, -6054 (6076) workars'corMensolion laws of California, and agree that 9 1 should becoma t to.the, 3700 oftheLalbw:Ccda 1 shallfOrthwith comply with those provisi su act to.the, CofSection TEOns. Tk Iliik 53350 P, tillISERVE 53350-4470 (6066) .00ON Date; Applicant. :!JR NOTICE TO APPLICANT: lf, after rooking th& POSIT .,00ediflcaleofExemption, you should,: become ;Ubjed to'the Workem* 710-2505 ( 851) Ir Compensation,provislons ofthe LaborCode,you mustforthwith comply with such proviaignsorthis1permit shall be deemed TREE INSPECTION;: 74500-4829 (2116) .00revoked. I WARNING: Failure to secure workerelcompensation coverage is unlawful. andshallsubjectan employer to7criminalpenalties Tiff MITIGATION 710-2550 ( 881) and civ!l lines tip to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), in addition to the cost of cormensation;'damagos as provided .00 for in section 37M of the laborcode, craoreal and atiorney'sfees, I ; -i I - I . PUB.FACI6T'T-fi0'0 1119! 52530-4426 (6073) .00 CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY PUB.FACILITY.CORP. YARD 52530-4426 (6073) .60in W paW.: atpenalty of perjury ftt theralls at construction loroft agency for t ichhissuad:(Soc- SW7. Oiv. C.) rforriurAof.1h wwkforwh PUB FACILITYXIVIC CKTR 52530-442h (6073) PUB.FACILITY.GIS 52530-4426 (6073 00 PUB.FACILITY..SEN PLN-UPD 52530-4426 (6073) .00 Landler's MUNIC1PALSERY, IMPACT 52541 --4- D 428 (6074,) Sionatum of:Applicant or Agent Vale HAzA RDOUS MATIERIAL DECLAR ATI Total Fees..*' 772.98mixture; containing a:hozar&= "Videriiiii equal to or greater than the amountsspecifiedon16Haziiirdo DYESiusMaterials; Information Guide? Total Payments: :772.98 Wilitho p_pd.bul!dIng be within:110W feenof tho!outer boundary of a school? YES NO, If 'YES* to any of I rmits fmUM-ntfro *q agency. required, provide ' a In South 00ast,*OUality ManagameM itair ponnits, are NOT awIfYES' to any, Of the, ntad: B rdino County, DArrowhoad-Firat 4 Environm-rdal keelth S.M..o. 385 N, Floor Pu u im, CA 92415,016C SLnarorAuth.ri ed g NOTE; OWNER SHALL`ffr_RESP6ZJBLE FOR THE L(G AeAND ACTLIa-MYSICAL $ LINE AS REQyinrq By ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FffNTANA- ETBACKS FROM PROPERTY Building P6ffnhs are subject to -expiration it workis nut commenced within 180 days after suspended [or 180 days: dat . out I issuance or 0 work is I DO HEREBY A6REE that all work in cormection with this Building and Safety Departm: ont Permitshell comply withall thelawsandrequirementsoftheCityofFontana, hereinafter called City, and I hereby canity3hat in polonnanco of said work, IshallnotviolateanylawoftheStateofCarifornia, including provisions for Workmar& Compensatiom Insurance. licames andother-requiationsipf the State. I agree to hold the City harrrdass from any and an liability for personal injury and propantydamage =used by any work done by me, my a 8", z or rapraaenlaWw on fine promisesj 1, a" that this parmit Ishallnot#qke the City subject to any claim for gf any work done tharounderand I aBrea to pmy,tho amourd of or the Perform r , li or Pot'., N 3 N sur.h claim against the City. (I certify that I a is ication and that th formatm, 9 is to. -I. I agree 10won, comply with all Islets 1101we and City ordinances relati to bui ing corLst ion lhori2e arepresontative1of the City oflorsa.- Building an th roparty for h a ap llad lor thiis partrul for the purposea, dd.S to, anta. of of me Dar!,= in r Melling Address OFFICE 9 1 Fram"ing 131 1.0! Ins:ulabon Walls': Y l 11, Venti 12: Oaf Irewalj 131 Fireol;;7c KL 4- Ext.LathIl!:'- All int. Lat 161 bmillialf, 1 17! Insul. Ceiling (Batts,; 18 wIrmull.. Ceiling (1316 6): 19 Ext. Gradi6g: 26. pool:Progun te 21 Piool!:Fdnce Gate!! J 22:. me pMobile. Hol set -u, 3'! OC&lnsp:, j Sh r0anefea Hold Downs. T -Bar :1 24! F., k ii 25: PLUMBING APPROVALS: J 7 7- Gird.'Plumbing TI 261 Watei.Piping 1 27 Rough Piumbinol IS 28 vents: 1, 29 ewage Qispo-sq 1: 11 J 30:: l.' Sewek 7 31 Watdr'Heator 1", 1! 44 32 Water S61teher T 33 Water Service. j U: Gas Test' i 36 S61ar 361 FINAL ELECTRICA L! PPROVALSl lj. 37 Povvor.Pole. 38' CofidyiU i 39. Ser' E6UWC6 ji l Y: 1 401 WiNO6 Al, 411: Grou'lindingNire lw 42 Bon lli 77 I j 73 Fixt6reS 441: S6rm J j J 451 OCCSignll:l 46: FINAL 0 MECHANICAL APPROVALS' 61 Ventilation , Lstel S 481 Plenums & Duct$!Ii ',:!I Furn19— 50 Inlets Put ets h- 51 m us on AirCb - b'--;tf- 11 :7 conjoressor Appji4nce.Cjear! 54' Fi pamp r Smoks: b toc Device i6 1,E;;;mercialli Hoo d 57. 1 j 58 PERMIT FINAL:. i59 APO cohn, rji SEWAGE, SY8TEU SIZEA LOCATIIQIN;' 11:11': 1 TaIjkj pit I Lbalbh Line RF-Ak OF PROPERTY LiNt 7 P&:.. j J. P. J!, City of Fontana Prod2/15/2022 11:46:23AM 1Page INSPECTION ACTIVITY REPORT 00100534Permit No. NORTH FONTANA FIRE DAMAGE REPAIR AND ATTACHED CARPORT Description LANG DONALD R Contractor Owner Applicant 10/23/2000 10/23/2000 Issued Approved Applied NotesResultInspectorInspection TypeCompletedScheduled Remarks 5187 SIERRA AVESite Address Lot Block Tract Parent Permit No. Notes NORTH FONTANA FIRE DAMAGE REPAIR AND ATTACHED CARPORT RequestedTime / By 10/24/2000 10/25/2000 1JP INCOMPLETE Fail Code: 00D-1460 - SERVICE 10/26/2000 10/27/2000 1JP INCOMPLETE Fail Code: 00D-1460 - SERVICE 11/20/2000 11/21/2000 1JP PASS Fail Code:460 - SERVICE 12/14/2000 12/15/2000 1JP CANCELLED Fail Code: 00D-1450 ROUGH ELEC 12/19/2000 12/20/2000 1JP Fail Code:450 ROUGH ELEC 5/16/2001 5/17/2001 1JP FAIL Fail Code: 00D-1499 - FINAL ELECT 5/21/2001 5/22/2001 1JP PASS Fail Code:499 - FINAL ELECT 5/21/2001 5/21/2001 1JP INCOMPLETE Fail Code:499 - FINAL ELECT 5/25/2004 6/1/2004 LEP PASS obj = per Jerry, all work done290 - MISC/SPEC INSP 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 LEP PASS899 - PERMIT FINAL INSP_DETAILS APPLICATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION Department of Building CITY OF FONTANA JOB ADDRESS OWNER Address Z f:-2- Contrartor (D7LA5-Y1-Q,/V Address DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE VALUE TOTAL FEE OF WORK—s 35 bate a 19 I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person in anymannerthatmayheinviolationoftheworkmen's compensa- tion laws of California. MIGNATY'"pt IT1' CONTR. LIC, Np CITY LIC, Fees U- h\ -,I ag c L-A, 1&9 CX4.— Plan Check 7 permit No. 1-4 Buildin- State Levy VALUE TOTAL FEE OF WORK—s 35 bate a 19 I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person in anymannerthatmayheinviolationoftheworkmen's compensa- tion laws of California. MIGNATY'"pt IT1' CONTR. LIC, Np CITY LIC, Forni F Lath tkLceflanmu INSPECTION RECORD CORRECTIONS OR REMARKS Ike"' Date •2 — 19 PLOT PIAN SKETCH Cultural Resources Study for the Sierra Business Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Maps