HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix G1 - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE
TAMARIND AVENUE PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0256-011-03 and -04
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:
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.; First Industrial, LP; First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60606 January 18, 2022; Revised April 25, 2022
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Andrew J. Garrison 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: First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.; First Industrial, LP; First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Report Date: January 18, 2022; Revised April 25, 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 0256-011- 03 and -04) Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Cultural Resources: Temp-1 (10642 Tamarind Avenue) and Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind Avenue) USGS Quadrangle: Section 29, Township 1 South, Range 5 West of the USGS Fontana, California (7.5-minute) Quadrangle Acreage: 4.2 acres Key Words: Survey; historic residence at 10642 Tamarind Avenue recorded as Temp-1; historic residence at 10622 Tamarind Avenue recorded as Temp-2; Temp-1 and Temp-2 found not eligible for the CRHR; fulltime monitoring of grading not recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue 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 ........................................1.0–15
1.3.2 Sacred Lands File Search ........................................................................1.0–17
1.4 Applicable Regulations .....................................................................................1.0–17
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................1.0–17
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Methods.............................................................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey ...............................................................................3.0–1
3.2.1 Site Temp-1 (10642 Tamarind Avenue) ...................................................3.0–4
3.2.2 Site Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind Avenue) ...................................................3.0–5
3.3 Summary of Field Investigations ......................................................................3.0–6
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................4.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED .......................5.0–1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................6.0–1
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
* Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
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 Site Plan .........................................................................................................1.0–4
Figure 3.2–1 Historic Structure Location Map ...................................................................3.0–3
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project, facing west ...............................................................3.0–2
Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project, facing east ................................................................3.0–2
Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the east and south façades of Site Temp-1 (10642 Tamarind
Ave), facing west ..............................................................................................3.0–4
Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the east façade of Site Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind Ave), facing
west...................................................................................................................3.0–5
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.3–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Tamarind Avenue
Project .............................................................................................................1.0–16
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request by First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, LP, and First
Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a cultural
resources study for the Tamarind Avenue Project (“project”). The project, located at 10622-10642
Tamarind Avenue, is in the eastern portion of the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, and
includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 256-011-03 and -04 for a total of 4.2 acres. The
project is situated in Section 29, Township 1 South, Range 5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline
and Meridian on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map. The
project parcels are highly disturbed, having previously been utilized for agricultural, commercial,
and residential purposes throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. As a result of the
previous land use, the properties have been repeatedly graded and cleared. The project applicant
proposes to demolish the existing buildings and grade the entire property for the construction of a
commercial warehouse building with associated parking and hardscape.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present
within the project and subsequently assess any resources as part of the City of Fontana’s
environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The archaeological investigation of the project included the review of an
archaeological records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological
studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries or
in the immediate vicinity. Results from the SCCIC records search did not identify any previously
recorded resources within the subject property; however, 13 resources (four prehistoric and nine
historic) have been recorded within one mile of the project. The search results indicate there is
potential for both historic and prehistoric resources within the project. BFSA also requested a
review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The NAHC response indicates there are no recorded sacred sites or locations of religious or
ceremonial importance within the project.
The cultural resources survey was conducted on September 9, 2021. The survey did not
identify any archaeological resources but did result in the discovery of two historic residences that
were recorded in the field as Temp-1 (10642 Tamarind Avenue) and Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind
Avenue). Additional study and evaluation of Temp-1 and Temp-2 was conducted separately from
this study (Stropes and Smith 2022).
Stropes and Smith (2022) evaluated Temp-1 and Temp-2 as not eligible for listing on the
CRHR, and the subject property has been impacted by past development. As such, the potential
for any significant unrecorded archaeological resources within the property is limited. Therefore,
full-time archeological monitoring of earthwork is not recommended based upon the findings of
this cultural resource study. However, the property does contain historic structures, and based
upon the records search results, prehistoric resources have been identified within one mile of the
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
project. Therefore, although potential of any significant resources being uncovered by the
development of the project is low, consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) of the Fontana General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Fontana
General Plan Update 2015 – 2035, it is recommended that should any archaeological resources be
discovered during the course of the project, a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior
standards shall be retained to assess the find, monitor construction activities, and take appropriate
protective measures should they be warranted.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue 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 south of Slover
Avenue and West of Tamarind Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
(Figure 1.1–1). The property, which includes APNs 0256-011-03 and -04, is located on the 7.5-
minute USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle in Section 29, Township 1 South,
Range 5 West (Figure 1.1–2). The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing buildings
and grade the entire 4.2-acre property for the construction of a commercial warehouse building
with associated parking and hardscape (Figure 1.1–3).
The property is currently developed with two existing single-family residences, associated
structures, and paved/gravel parking areas. The project parcels are highly disturbed, having
previously been utilized for agricultural, commercial, and residential purposes throughout the latter
half of 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. In regard to historic resources, the property is located within an area that
historically supported rural residential/agricultural and commercial businesses, and structures
older than 50 years of age are common within 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). The project is situated on an alluvial fan at the western
margin and southern end of Lytle Creek.
The general project is characterized by relatively flat land (with an average elevation of
1075 feet AMSL) that was previously used as farmland. The property has been previously
impacted by cultivation, rural-residential development, and commercial enterprises. 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
The project lies primarily 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 2021). 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 roughly between 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.”
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).
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
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).
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,
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
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
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
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
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)
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
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)
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”
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
(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).
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
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).
Historic Period
The historic background of the project 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). In the late eighteenth
century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San
Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing southern California, and gradually
expanded their use of the interior valley (presently western Riverside County) for raising grain and
cattle to support the missions. The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in what is presently Jurupa,
Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, while the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land
in what is presently Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (American Local History Network:
Riverside County, California 1998). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were
recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1964). 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).
In the mid- to late 1770s, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through much of what is now
Riverside County while searching for an overland route from Sonora, Mexico to San Gabriel and
Los Angeles, describing fertile valleys, lakes, and sub-desert areas (American Local History
Network: Riverside County, California 1998; Riverside County n.d.). Spanish missionaries
formed Mission San Gabriel in the San Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century. The
mission established Rancho San Bernardino in 1819, which included the present-day areas of San
Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Redlands, and Colton (City of San Bernardino 2015). Since there
was no reliable water source in the area, from 1819 to 1820, the missionaries developed a zanja
through the use of Native American labor from the Guachama Rancheria (Smallwood 2006). The
creation of the zanja was implemented to divert waters from Mill Creek all the way through the
city of Redlands, ending near the mission to assist with agricultural enterprises. The new water
source allowed nearby ranching districts to develop during the nineteenth century (City of
Redlands 2010; Smallwood 2006).
Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
the end of the Mission Period (Brigandi 1998; Riverside County n.d.). By this time, the missions
owned some of the best and most fertile land in southern California. In order for California to
develop, the land would have to be made productive enough to turn a profit (Brigandi 1998). The
new government began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected
Mexican citizens. The “grants” were called “ranchos,” and many of these ranchos have lent their
names to modern-day locales (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California
1998).
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 the San Luis Rey Mission 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).
In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States,
leading to California became a state in 1850. These events generated a steady flow of settlers into
the area, including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health-seekers, speculators, politicians,
adventurers, seekers of religious freedom, and individuals desiring to create utopian colonies.
In 1851, 500 Mormons moved to the Redlands/San Bernardino area and purchased Rancho
San Bernardino from the Lugo family (City of Redlands 2010). The settlement that the Mormons
created within the rancho was short-lived, however, as in 1857, Brigham Young recalled all
Mormons in San Bernardino back to Utah. Approximately 1,400 Mormons returned to Utah, while
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
the remaining 45 percent stayed in San Bernardino, choosing “to forsake the church rather than
leave their homes” (Lyman 1989).
By the late 1880s and early 1890s, there was growing discontent between San Bernardino
and Riverside, its neighbor 10 miles to the south, due to differences in opinion concerning religion,
morality, the Civil War, politics, and fierce competition to attract settlers. After a series of
instances in which charges were claimed about unfair use of tax monies to the benefit of only San
Bernardino, several people from Riverside decided to investigate the possibility of a new county.
In May 1893, voters living within portions of San Bernardino County (to the north) and San Diego
County (to the south) approved the formation of Riverside County. Early business opportunities
were linked to the agriculture industry but commerce, construction, manufacturing, transportation,
and tourism also provided a healthy local economy (American Local History Network: Riverside
County, California 1998; Riverside County n.d.).
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 (1860 Federal Census; 1870 Federal Census; 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
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
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 the Kaiser
Community Homes to address the burgeoning housing needs of post-war America. Within
Fontana and neighboring Ontario, Kaiser Community Homes provided affordable residential
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
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).
Kaiser and their contributions to Fontana and the nation during the mid-twentieth century
can be viewed in the context of the “Post-War Building Boom of 1945–1970 (National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012).” The Kaiser Steel Corp. was important to the in
the expansion of development during the period 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 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. (LSA) indicates that the property to the north that was not purchased by
CSI had been 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 the Fontana (City of Fontana 2018b). Between 1980 and
1987, Fontana’s population doubled from 35,000 to 70,000, 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 grow
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 since become a
transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic
2005; City of Fontana 2018a).
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search was requested on September 8, 2021 from the SCCIC at
CSU Fullerton for the project and a one-mile search radius. The results of the records search
indicated that no resources have been recorded within the project. However, 13 resources (four
prehistoric and nine historic) are located within one-mile of the project, which consist of one
prehistoric bedrock milling site with associated artifacts scatter, one prehistoric petroglyph site,
two prehistoric lithic scatters, the historic Southern Pacific Railroad (SPR) alignment, the historic
Kaiser Fontana Medical Center campus, a historic transmission line, a historic farm/ranch
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
complex, and five historic single-family residences (Table 1.3–1). The closest resource to the
project is the historic farm/ranch complex (SBR-11,567H), while the next two closest resources
include the historic SPR alignment (SBR-10,330H) and a prehistoric lithic scatter (SBR-5444)
both of which are within a half-mile of the project.
Table 1.3–1
Cultural Resources Located Within
One Mile of the Tamarind Avenue Project
Site(s) Description
SBR-1574 Prehistoric bedrock milling site with artifact scatter
SBR-1582 Prehistoric Petroglyphs
SBR-5443 and SBR-5444 Prehistoric lithic scatter
SBR-10,330H Historic SPR alignment
SBR-11,567H Historic farm/ranch complex
P-36-014467 Historic Kaiser Fontana Medical Center campus
P-36-026051 Historic transmission line
P-36-031737; P-36-032472; P-36-032473
P-36-032474; and P-36-032476 Historic single-family residence
The records search data also identified 13 studies that have been conducted within one mile
of the project, two of which included the subject property (Del Chario and Cottrell 1984; Panich
and Holson 2010). Again, no resources were recorded within the subject property as a result of
the previous studies.
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, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File
• The USGS 15' 1896 San Bernadino, 7.5' 1943 Fontana, 7.5' 1953 Fontana, and 7.5'
1975 Fontana topographic maps
No archaeological resources were identified as a result of any of the above sources; however, the
1953 Fontana topographic map does show structures within the subject property.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
1.3.2 Sacred Lands File Search
At BFSA’s own discretion, a records search of the NAHC SLF was requested on September
8, 2021. The search was conducted to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or
locations of religious or ceremonial importance, not recorded with the SCCIC, are present within
the project. The response from the NAHC indicates there are no recorded sacred sites or locations
of religious or ceremonial importance within the project. All correspondence can be found within
Appendix C.
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:
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;
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
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
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:
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
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.
Section 15064.5 (d and e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an initial study 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 Tamarind Avenue 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 project included the survey of the
4.2-acre property for the construction of a commercial warehouse building with associated parking
and hardscape. 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 here 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?
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. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an
archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research
were undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project;
2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–2
chronological placement of each cultural resource identified;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and
4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources
identified.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue 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 4.2-acre property, and the 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
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 five meters apart, when not obstructed by development, while visually
inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be
located were closely inspected. 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.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
Project Archaeologist Andrew J. Garrison conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on
September 9, 2021 under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. Ground visibility
was limited due to development, pavement, gravel, landscaping, and vegetation (Plates 3.2–1 and
3.2–2). The entire property appears to have been previously graded and developed. As a result of
the field survey, two historic single-family residences with associated historic structures were
identified within the project. The historic addresses, 10642 Tamarind Avenue (Temp-1) and 10622
Tamarind Avenue (Temp-2), were studied separately from this assessment (see Stropes and Smith
2022). No other cultural resources were observed during the survey of the project. The locations
of the sites are provided on Figure 3.2–1, and descriptions of the sites based upon the initial survey
information are provided in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project, facing west.
Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the project, facing east.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–4
3.2.1 Site Temp-1 (10642 Tamarind Avenue)
Site Temp-1 was identified during the current archaeological survey as a single-family
residence with a detached garage located at 10642 Tamarind Avenue (Plate 3.2–3). The structure
consists of an early Ranch-style residence with stucco exterior. The Parcel Information
Management System (PIMS) database indicates that the structure was built in 1948. Historic aerial
photographs possibly indicate an earlier version of the residence in 1938, but the photo is not clear.
The detached garage is not visible until 1959. The residence appears to have been extensively
modified, and all windows are altered, many of which have been improperly infilled. It is clear
that two windows on the front, east façade have been completely filled in. The exterior garage is
visible in 1957 but appears about half the size it currently is. The garage along with the residence
have obviously been expanded. Aerial photos show a large agricultural building just west of the
residence between 1959 and 1967. This building is no longer present and all other buildings on
the Temp-1 parcel are modern and do not appear to be historically tied to the residence. A more
detailed description and assessment of Temp-1 can be found in Stropes and Smith (2022) who
evaluated the resource as not eligible for listing on the CRHR. An overview photograph of the
residence and garage is provided in Plate 3.2–3, and the general configuration of the resource is
shown in Figure 3.2–1.
3.2.2 Site Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind Avenue)
Plate 3.2–3: Overview of the east and south façades of Site Temp-1 (10642 Tamarind Ave), facing west.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–5
3.2.2 Site Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind Avenue)
Site Temp-2 was identified during the current archaeological survey as a single-family
residence located at 10622 Tamarind Avenue (Plate 3.2–4). The 1960s Ranch-style residence with
attached garage is primarily covered in stucco and looks to have been expanded. Most notably, a
large sunroom has been added to the back, west façade. Historic aerial photographs and the PIMS
database indicate that the residence was constructed in 1964. A more detailed description and
assessment of Temp-1 can be found in Stropes and Smith (2022) who evaluated the resource as
not eligible for listing on the CRHR. An overview photograph of the resource is provided in Plate
3.2–4, and the general configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 3.2–1.
Plate 3.2–4: Overview of the east façade of Site Temp-2 (10622 Tamarind Ave), facing west.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–6
3.3 Summary of Field Investigations
As a result of the records search analysis and field survey, one historic single-family
residence with an associated detached garage (Temp-1) and one historic single-family residence
with an attached garage (Temp-2) were identified within the project. No prehistoric archaeological
sites were discovered during the survey process.
This Phase I cultural resources study did not include any site evaluations to determine
significance under CEQA criteria. The additional study and evaluation of the resources was
conducted separately (see Stropes and Smith 2022). Both resources were evaluated by Stropes
and Smith (2022) as not eligible for listing on the CRHR.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The cultural resources survey did not identify any archaeological resources; however, the
survey did note that the project has been previously impacted by prior land use and ground
visibility was limited. The survey identified two historic properties: one historic single-family
residence with an associated detached garage (Temp-1) and one historic single-family residence
with an attached garage (Temp-2). Additional study and evaluation of the resources was conducted
separately (see Stropes and Smith 2022). Both resources were evaluated by Stropes and Smith
(2022) as not eligible for listing on the CRHR.
Stropes and Smith (2022) evaluated Temp-1 and Temp-2 as not eligible for listing on the
CRHR, and the subject property has been impacted by past development. As such, the potential
for any significant unrecorded archaeological resources within the property is limited. Therefore,
full-time archeological monitoring of earthwork is not recommended based upon the findings of
this cultural resource study. However, the property does contain historic structures, and based
upon the records search results, prehistoric resources have been identified within one mile of the
project. Therefore, although potential of any significant resources being uncovered by the
development of the project is low, consistent with the MMRP of the Fontana General Plan EIR –
Fontana General Plan Update 2015 – 2035, the following Mitigation Measures are recommended
for the project:
MM-CUL-2: If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them
for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological
sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or
focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a
local government action) to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA
guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–2
illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
MM-CUL-3: Where consistent with applicable local, State, and federal law and
deemed appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall
consider the following requests by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and
Morongo Band of Mission Indians:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during
construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of
the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall
project may continue during this period;
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity
(as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior
standards) and the City/project applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native
American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards) as soon as possible;
• Utilize a Native American monitor from the appropriate Native American
entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards) where deemed appropriate or required by the City,
during initial ground-disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys, and/or
cultural resource excavations.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Project was directed by Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Project Archaeologist Andrew J.
Garrison. The report text was prepared by Summer J. Forsman, Andrew J. Garrison, and Brian F.
Smith. Report graphics were provided by Andrew J. Garrison. Technical editing and report
production were conducted by Summer J. Forsman. The SCCIC at CSU Fullerton provided the
archaeological records search information. 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998 American Local History Network’s Page for Riverside County, California. Electronic document, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/riverside/, accessed March 28, 2006. Anicic, John Charles, Jr. 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 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. Benedict, Ruth Fulton 1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3). Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Various dates. Research library holdings including Sanborn maps, USGS maps, aerial photographs, city directories, published regional histories, aerial photographs, nd geologic and paleontological references. Brigandi, Phil 1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California. City of Fontana 2018a Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035. Approved and Adopted by City Council November 13, 2018. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/ DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan-
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–2
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. City of Redlands 2010 City of Redlands General Plan. City of San Bernardino 2015 History of San Bernardino. Electronic document, https://www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us/about/history/history_of_san_bernardino_(short_version).asp, accessed November 10, 2015. 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. http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart-v2011.jpg.pdf. Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Conford, Danial (editor) 1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 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. Del Chario, Kathleen C. and Marie G. Cottrell 1984 Archaeological Resources Assessment Conducted for the Southern Pacific Business Park, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Archaeological Resource Management Corp. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Drucker, Philip 1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records 1(1):1-52. University of California, Berkeley.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–3
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. 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. 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, 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. 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–4
Lyman, Edward Leo 1989 The Rise and Decline of Mormon San Bernardino. Brigham Young University Studies 29(4):43-63. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 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. 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. 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–5
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012 A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II
Housing. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Panich, Lee and John Holson 2010 Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report, 66kV Transmission Lines Access Roads, Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Segments & and 8, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Pourade, Richard F. 1964 The Glory Years. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 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. Riverside County N.d. Welcome to Riverside County, California: Riverside County History. Electronic document, http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/county_info/history.asp, accessed March 28, 2006. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego Museum of Man. Smallwood, Josh 2006 Site record form for Site SBR-8092/H. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University at Fullerton. 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–6
Stropes, J.R.K. and Brian F. Smith 2022 Historic Structure Assessment for the 10622 and 10642 Tamarind Avenue Buildings, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 256-011-02 to -04). Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 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. United States Bureau of the Census Various dates 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. 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. 2021 Paleontological Resource Assessment, Tamarind Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 256-011-02 to -04). 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 Tamarind Avenue 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.
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009
Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005
Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005
Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal
agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and
perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records
checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric
lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private
clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological
monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed
projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory
direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California
Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant-
funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California
Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural
resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project,
City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San
Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La
Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside
County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel
Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Mills Act application.
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys,
Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian
Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic
Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from
CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual
Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those
Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of
experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Tamarind Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)