HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D- Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE
CITRUS AND OLEANDER AVENUE
AT SANTA ANA AVENUE PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 255-011-13, -14, -15, -18, -19, and -25 to -32
and 255-021-17, -18, -22, -23, and -24
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Preparer:
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
___________________
Signature
Project Proponent:
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
September 30, 2022
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Jennifer R.K. Stropes and Brian F. Smith
Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 679-8218
Client/Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
Report Date: September 30, 2022
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at
Santa Ana Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California (APNs 255-011-13, -14, -15, -18, -19, and -25
to -32 and 255-021-17, -18, -22, -23, and -24)
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Structure
Evaluation
New Sites: Temp-1 (10818 Oleander Avenue), Temp-2 (10840 Oleander
Avenue), Temp-3 (10864 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10888
Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16140 Oleander Avenue), Temp-6
(16156 Santa Ana Avenue), Temp-7 (16172 Santa Ana Avenue),
Temp-8 (16204 Santa Ana Avenue), Temp-9 (16228 Santa Ana
Avenue), and Temp-10 (10861 Citrus Avenue)
USGS Quadrangle: Fontana, California (7.5 minute)
Acreage: 24.43 acres
Key Words: Survey; historic buildings at 10818, 10840, 10864, 10888, and
16140 Oleander Avenue and 16156, 16172, 16204, and 16228
Santa Ana Avenue, and 10861 Citrus Avenue recorded as Temp-
1 to Temp-10, respectively; monitoring of grading is
recommended; historic buildings not significant and preservation
not recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ....................................................................... vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives ................................................1.0–5
1.3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................1.0–6
1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ........................................1.0–20
1.4 Applicable Regulations .....................................................................................1.0–21
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................1.0–22
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Methods.............................................................................................................3.0–1
3.1.1 Archival Research ....................................................................................3.0–1
3.1.2 Survey Methods ........................................................................................3.0–1
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment .................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey ...............................................................................3.0–2
3.3 Historic Structure Analysis ...............................................................................3.0–2
3.3.1 History of the Project Area ......................................................................3.0–2
3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resources .........................................................3.0–21
3.3.3 Significance Evaluation ...........................................................................3.0–43
3.4 Discussion/Summary ........................................................................................3.0–78
4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT
IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................4.0–1
4.1 Resource Importance ........................................................................................4.0–1
4.2 Impact Identification .........................................................................................4.0–1
5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES AND
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................5.0–1
5.1 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................5.0–1
5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................5.0–1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED .......................6.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................7.0–1
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Site Record Forms*
Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
Appendix E – Historic Maps
* Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map ...................................................................................1.0–2
Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3
Figure 1.1–3 Site Plan .........................................................................................................1.0–4
Figure 3.2–1 Cultural Resource Location Map ...................................................................3.0–6
Figure 3.3–1 Historic Structure Location Map ...................................................................3.0–7
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project from the southwest corner, facing north ...................3.0–3
Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project from the southwest corner, facing northeast .............3.0–3
Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the project from the southwest corner, facing east .....................3.0–4
Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the project from the southeast corner, facing northwest .............3.0–4
Plate 3.2–5 Overview of the project from the northeast corner, facing south ....................3.0–5
Plate 3.2–6 Overview of the project from the northeast corner, facing west ......................3.0–5
Plate 3.3–1 Judy Roberts .....................................................................................................3.0–9
Plate 3.3–2 Elizabeth Warner .............................................................................................3.0–9
Plate 3.3–3 Audrey and Jerry Nugent .................................................................................3.0–10
Plate 3.3–4 Monty Fisher in 1965 .......................................................................................3.0–11
Plate 3.3–5 Kele Fox in 1923 ..............................................................................................3.0–13
Plate 3.3–6 Homero Mora ...................................................................................................3.0–13
Plate 3.3–7 Alberta Cunningham ........................................................................................3.0–14
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–8 Jesse Weirich ...................................................................................................3.0–15
Plate 3.3–9 Lena (née Meszaros) Deme .............................................................................3.0–16
Plate 3.3–10 Philip Quesada ...............................................................................................3.0–17
Plate 3.3–11 1966 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–19
Plate 3.3–12 East façade of the 10818 Oleander Avenue building, facing west ................3.0–22
Plate 3.3–13 Southern portion of the east façade of the 10818 Oleander Avenue building,
facing north ....................................................................................................3.0–22
Plate 3.3–14 North façade of the 10818 Oleander Avenue building, facing south ............3.0–23
Plate 3.3–15 South façade of the 10818 Oleander Avenue building, facing north .............3.0–23
Plate 3.3–16 West façade of the 10818 Oleander Avenue building, facing east ................3.0–25
Plate 3.3–17 South (left) and east (right) façades of the 10840 Oleander Avenue building,
facing northwest ............................................................................................3.0–25
Plate 3.3–18 East (left) and north (right) façades of the 10840 Oleander Avenue building,
facing southwest ............................................................................................3.0–26
Plate 3.3–19 West façade of the 10840 Oleander Avenue building, facing east ................3.0–26
Plate 3.3–20 East façade of the 10864 Oleander Avenue building, facing west ................3.0–28
Plate 3.3–21 East façade of the 10864 Oleander Avenue attached garage, facing
northwest .......................................................................................................3.0–28
Plate 3.3–22 North façade of the 100864 Oleander Avenue building, facing south ..........3.0–29
Plate 3.3–23 South façade of the 10864 Oleander Avenue attached garage, facing north .3.0–29
Plate 3.3–24 West façade of the 10864 Oleander Avenue building, facing east ................3.0–30
Plate 3.3–25 East façade of the 10888 Oleander Avenue building, facing northwest ........3.0–30
Plate 3.3–26 East façade of the 10888 Oleander Avenue attached garage, facing west .....3.0–31
Plate 3.3–27 South façade of the 10888 Oleander Avenue building, facing north .............3.0–31
Plate 3.3–28 West façade of the 10888 Oleander Avenue building, facing northeast ........3.0–32
Plate 3.3–29 South (left) and east (right) façades of the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue
building, facing northwest .............................................................................3.0–32
Plate 3.3–30 North façade of the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence,
facing southwest ............................................................................................3.0–34
Plate 3.3–31 North façade of the 16140 Santa ana Avenue single-family residence,
facing south ...................................................................................................3.0–34
Plate 3.3–32 1980 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–35
Plate 3.3–33 2005 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–36
Plate 3.3–34 South (left) and east (right) façades of the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue
prefabricated home, facing northwest ...........................................................3.0–37
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–35 North (left) and west (right) façades of the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue
prefabricated home, facing southeast ............................................................3.0–37
Plate 3.3–36 East (left) and north (right) façades of the 16140 Santa ana Avenue
prefabricated home, facing southwest ...........................................................3.0–39
Plate 3.3–37 Primary (south) façade of the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing
north ...............................................................................................................3.0–39
Plate 3.3–38 North façade of the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue garage (left) and residence
(right), facing southwest ................................................................................3.0–40
Plate 3.3–39 West (left) and south (right) façades of the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue
building, facing northeast ..............................................................................3.0–40
Plate 3.3–40 1959 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–41
Plate 3.3–41 2009 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–42
Plate 3.3–42 South façade of the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing northwest ...3.0–43
Plate 3.3–43 South (left) and east (right) façades of the wood-framed structure behind
the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing northwest .............................3.0–43
Plate 3.3–44 North façade of the wood-framed structure behind the 16156 Santa Ana
Avenue building, facing southwest ...............................................................3.0–44
Plate 3.3–45 West (left) and south (right) façades of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue
building, facing northeast ..............................................................................3.0–44
Plate 3.3–46 South façade of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing northwest ...3.0–46
Plate 3.3–47 East façade of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing northwest ......3.0–46
Plate 3.3–48 North façade of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing south ...........3.0–47
Plate 3.3–49 South façade of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue detached garage, facing
northeast ........................................................................................................3.0–47
Plate 3.3–50 2015 view of the 16172 Santa ana Avenue detached garage, facing
northeast ........................................................................................................3.0–48
Plate 3.3–51 2018 view of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue detached garage, facing
northeast ........................................................................................................3.0–48
Plate 3.3–52 1985 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–50
Plate 3.3–53 1994 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–51
Plate 3.3–54 South (left) and east (right) façades of the 1985 to 1994 addition to the
16204 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing northwest ...................................3.0–52
Plate 3.3–55 East (left) and north (right) façades of the 1985 to 1994 addition to the
16204 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing southwest ...................................3.0–52
Plate 3.3–56 West (left) and south (right) façades of the 16204 Santa Ana Avenue
building, facing northeast ..............................................................................3.0–53
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–57 North (left) and west (right) façades of the northwest addition to the 16204
Santa Ana Avenue building, facing southeast ...............................................3.0–53
Plate 3.3–58 View of the bird enclosure structures north of the 16204 Santa Ana Avenue
building, facing west .....................................................................................3.0–54
Plate 3.3–59 South façade of the 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing north ...........3.0–54
Plate 3.3–60 East façade of the 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building, facing west ..............3.0–56
Plate 3.3–61 North (left) and west (right) façades of the 16228 Santa Ana Avenue
building, facing southeast ..............................................................................3.0–56
Plate 3.3–62 West (left) and south (right) façades of the 10861 Citrus Avenue building,
facing northeast .............................................................................................3.0–57
Plate 3.3–63 South façade of the 10861 Citrus Avenue building, facing north ..................3.0–57
Plate 3.3–64 North façade if the 10861 Citrus Avenue building, facing southwest ...........3.0–59
Plate 3.3–65 North (left) and west (right) facades of the 10861 Citrus Avenue garage
addition, facing southeast ..............................................................................3.0–59
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 0.1–1 Historic Structures Identified Within the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at
Santa Ana Avenue Project ............................................................................ vii
Table 1.3–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One-Half Mile of the Citrus and
Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project .............................................1.0–20
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a requirement by the City of Fontana, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
(BFSA) conducted a cultural resources survey of the 24.43-acre Citrus and Oleander Avenue at
Santa Ana Avenue Project. This project is located south of Interstate 10, north of Santa Ana
Avenue, and between Citrus and Cypress avenues in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 255-011-13, -14, -15, -18, -19, and -25 to -32 and
255-021-17, -18, -22, -23, and -24). On the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scale
Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map, the project is situated within Section 30,
Township 1 South, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The proposed project
consists of the construction of three industrial warehouse buildings and associated tractor-trailer
loading docks, parking, and infrastructure.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present
within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Fontana’s
environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). 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. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) review by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). A review of the records searches indicates that there
are no previously recorded historic resources, sacred sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources within the
subject property.
The archaeological survey, which was conducted on March 15, 2022, was completed in
order to determine if cultural resources exist within the property and if the project represents a
potential adverse impact to cultural resources. The survey resulted in the identification of 13
single-family residences and outbuildings (Table 0.1–1) that meet the age threshold under the
National Register (36 CFR 60.4) and the California Code of Regulations (CCR § 4852) to require
evaluations of potential eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR):
Table 0.1–1
Historic Structures Identified Within the
Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
Site Address APN Description
Temp-1 10818 Oleander Avenue 255-011-28 Single-family residence built in 1968
Temp-2 10840 Oleander Avenue 255-011-27
Single-family residence built in 1969 Temp-3 10864 Oleander Avenue 255-011-26
Temp-4 10888 Oleander Avenue 255-011-25
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vii
Site Address APN Description
Temp-5 16140 Santa Ana Avenue 255-011-29
One single-family residence
built in 1954 and one relocated
prefabricated home built/or moved
between 1959 and 1966
Temp-6 16156 Santa Ana Avenue 255-011-19 Single-family residence built in 1954
Temp-7 16172 Santa Ana Avenue 255-011-18
Single-family residence and detached
garage built in 1944 and moved to the
property between 1966 and 1980
Temp-8 16204 Santa Ana Avenue 255-011-14
Single-family residence built in 1949
and bird-raising structures built at
various dates between 1948 and the
present
Temp-9 16228 Santa Ana Avenue 255-011-13 Single-family residence built in 1947
Temp-10 10861 Citrus Avenue 255-011-30 Single-family residence built
between 1959 and 1962
According to the proposed development plan, the project will impact all 10 identified
cultural resource sites. Because these 53- to 74-year-old structures would be impacted by
development, the evaluation of the structures was needed to address potentially significant impacts
to historical resources. The structures were evaluated by BFSA as part of this study. Based upon
the results of the field survey and records searches, from the perspective of the CEQA review of
the proposed development, sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 have been evaluated as not significant. While
the buildings meet the age threshold of 50 years to be evaluated, they were not designed by an
architect of importance, they do not possess any architecturally important elements, and the owners
were not historically significant to the community. Based upon the conclusions reached during
the current evaluation, no mitigation measures are recommended for the historic buildings at
Temp-1 to Temp-10. No impacts to significant resources are associated with the proposed
development of the property.
Although the historic-period buildings were evaluated as not CEQA-significant, the
potential exists that unidentified significant historic deposits may be present that are related to the
occupation of this location since the 1940s. Because of this potential to encounter buried cultural
deposits, monitoring of grading by a qualified archaeologist is recommended. As no Native
American prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the property, Native American
monitoring would not be required during grading unless and until a discovery of a prehistoric site
or deposit occurs, at which time a Native American monitor should be incorporated into the
monitoring program. Should potentially significant cultural deposits be discovered, mitigation
measures will be implemented to reduce the effects of the grading impacts. A Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been provided in this report. As part of this
study, a copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana
Avenue Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental
guidelines. The project is located south of Interstate 10, north of Santa Ana Avenue, and between
Citrus and Cypress avenues in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–
1). The property, which includes 255-011-13, -14, -15, -18, -19, and -25 to -32 and 255-021-17, -
18, -22, -23, and -24, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana, California topographic
quadrangle in Section 30, Township 1 South, Range 6 West (Figure 1.1–2). The project proposes
to grade the entire 24.43-acre property for the construction of three industrial warehouse buildings
and associated tractor-trailer loading docks, parking, and infrastructure (Figure 1.1–3).
The project includes 10 addresses that are currently developed with single-family
residences, outbuildings, and associated hardscape and landscaping. The survey resulted in the
identification of 13 single-family residences and outbuildings (Table 0.1–1) at the 10 addresses
that meet the age threshold under the National Register (36 CFR 60.4) and the California Code of
Regulations (CCR § 4852) to require evaluations of potential eligibility to the CRHR. The 10
historic-period properties have been recorded as sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 (see Table 0.1–1).
The property was previously graded for the development of the parcels and ground
visibility during the survey was limited by the presence of the current development and associated
residential landscaping. 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,
which in this particular case include the project’s proximity to Lytle Creek and the terrestrial
ecosystems surrounding the creek, which are part of an environmental setting that supported a
significant prehistoric population for over 10,000 years.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue 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 general
project was previously used as rural ranches. No natural features that are often associated with
prehistoric sites, such as bedrock outcrops or natural sources of water, are visible on aerial
photographs or maps of the project area.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
Geologically, the project primarily lies near the western margin and distal southern end
of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan, which emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains
approximately nine to 10 miles to the north, as a result of uplift and dissection of the eastern San
Gabriel Mountains (Wirths 2022). The main source of these sediments is from the Lytle Creek
drainage, near where the northwest-southeast-trending San Andreas fault zone cuts across and
separates the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges (Wirths 2022). Geomorphically,
the project is relatively flat lying, with a gentle slope to the southwest and elevations ranging from
1,010 to 1,025 feet AMSL. The area is overlain by Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial
fan sediments of the Lytle Creek fan (Morton 2003).
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 area during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich
nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely obtainable from 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 – Archaeological Perspectives
The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material
remains left behind. This is done by using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which
draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology allows one to look deeper
into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest via analysis of material
culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the
archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a
given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts
of a given culture upon this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment.
Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material
culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic”
perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the
participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hoping to attain
a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by
definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work.
As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding,
and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt
to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material
culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture
that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective.
As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and
juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.”
This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of
choices and consequences influencing everything from technology, to religions, to institutions.
Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices,
changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address
both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the
archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014).
To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological
(etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the
ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected.
In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution
had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia
of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has
affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there
remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As
a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible.
1.3.1 Introduction
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).
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
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 upon the types of resources available to
prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten,
but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).
The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water,
and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland
to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants,
including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
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 into 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
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
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)
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
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 greatly profited 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”
(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
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
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
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).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general
periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American
Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into
additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to
1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these
phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for
archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western
peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents,
oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan
Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an
expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific
coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track,
Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names
have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from
use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”;
60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages
observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial,
long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged
from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey
(San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel
(Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California
was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given
permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from
Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through
Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de
Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through
southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between
San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the
establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly
vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to
expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In
order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find
potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father
Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla,
at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley
received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father
Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino
County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente
(circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These
efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established
a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The
indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to
work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social
conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin
to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the
establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a
result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered
expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan
Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located
in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names
quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day
locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake
Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo
(Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
within western Riverside County.
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native
Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources,
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook
1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war
(Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put
into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once
California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines,
business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969;
Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27
separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was
primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was
established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office
in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the
Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984).
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County,
including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto
Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing
provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the
promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its
first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental
Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx
brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area
became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates
founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho.
Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not
until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that
the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well
suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive
irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in
California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population
growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation
of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson
1971).
Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a
military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During
World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location
of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout
the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant
portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s,
Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more
than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents
(Patterson 1971).
General History of the City of Fontana
In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, cofounder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer
based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries,
Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as part of the
Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other
properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including
almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and
settlers surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in which the
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water Company was
formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to:
[U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These
latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and
using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the
settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long
and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them,
quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to
control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic
Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have
quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888)
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company
platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had
acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the
channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888). In the early 1900s:
The use of the automobile had grown considerably … and there was a need for
better roads, the The National Old Trails (N.O.T.) Association was organized to
promote a highway between Los Angeles and New York; which was aligned close
to the tracks of the AT & Santa Fe railroad through California and Arizona, passing
through Fontana. (Whittall 2020)
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). 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” (Cornford 1995).
In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe
railroad tracks. That year, Foothill Boulevard was improved “and the Automobile Club of
Southern California’s map of 1912 shows the N.O.T. highway running on the north side of the
Santa Fe Railroad, passing through Rialto and heading straight, west until reaching Cucamonga”
(Whittall 2020). Much of the land to the south of the Fontana 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
between grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery.
“In 1926, the N.O.T. alignment became part of the newly created U.S. Highway 66. And
it was gradually improved and widened after that date” (Whittall 2020). “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” (Cornford 1995).
Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers
of steel west of the Mississippi River. The facility was financed and built by the wartime
government agency known as the Defense Plant Corporation (DPC) and was one of two steel plants
in the west (Graves 2009). 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. According to Cornford (1995):
For hundreds of Dustbowl refugees from the Southwest, still working in the
orchards at the beginning of World War Two, Kaiser Steel was the happy ending
to the Grapes of Wrath. Construction of the mill drained the San Bernardino Valley
of workers, creating an agricultural labor shortage that was not relieved until the
coming of the braceros in 1943. Kaiser originally believed that he could apply his
Richmond methods to shaping the Fontana workforce: leaving the construction
crews in place and “training them in ten days to make steel” under the guidance of
experts hired from the East. But he underestimated the craft knowledge and
folklore, communicated only through hereditary communities of steelworkers, that
were essential to making steel. Urgent appeals, therefore, were circulated through
the steel valleys of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, recruiting draft-exempt
steel specialists for Fontana.
The impact of five thousand steelworkers and their families on local rusticity was
predictably shattering. The available housing stock in Fontana and western San
Bernardino County (also coveted by incoming military families) was quickly
saturated. With few zoning ordinances to control the anarchy, temporary and
substandard shelters of every kind sprouted up in Fontana and neighboring districts
like Rialto, Bloomington, and Cucamonga. Most of the original blast furnace crew
was housed in a gerrybuilt trailer park known affectionately as “Kaiserville.” Later
arrivals were often forced to live out of their cars. The old Fontana Farms colonists
came under great pressure to sell to developers and speculators. Others converted
their chicken coops to shacks and rented them to single workers—a primitive
housing form that was still common through the 1950s.
Although areas of Fontana retained their Millerian charm, especially the redtiled
village center along Sierra with its art-deco theater and prosperous stores,
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
boisterous, often rowdy, juke joints and roadhouses created a different ambience
along Arrow Highway and Foothill Boulevard. Neighboring Rialto—presumably
the location of Eddie Mars’s casino in Chandler’s The Big Sleep —acquired a
notorious reputation as a wide-open gambling center and L.A. mob hangout (a
reputation which it has recovered in the 1990s as the capital of the Inland Empire’s
crack gangs). Meanwhile the ceaseless truck traffic from the mill, together with the
town’s adjacency to Route 66 (and, today, to Interstates 10 and 15), made Fontana
a major regional trucking center, with bustling twenty-four-hour fuel stops and
cafes on its outskirts …
Boomtown Fontana of the 1940s ceased to be a coherent community or cultural
fabric. Instead it was a colorful but dissonant bricolage of Sunkist growers,
Slovene chicken ranchers, gamblers, mobsters, over-the-road truckers,
industrialized Okies, braceros, the Army Air Corps (at nearby bases), and
transplanted steelworkers and their families.
Wallis (2018) elaborates:
Towards the tail end of the war, Kaiser would propose a massive steel deal in an
attempt to rejuvenate the Kaiser steel company. This deal would expand the
company because Kaiser foresaw a spike in postwar steel production. “At one point
he became expansive in the outlining of Los Angeles’ probable role in the immense
industrial development of Southern California. [3] Kaiser had a feeling that not
only would items like washing machines and stove production spike after the war
but rail and automobile production would spike as well. “…overall steel production
of 1,800,000 a year of steel products ranging from ships, washing machines,
housing structural shapes, utensils, roofing and stoves to rails and sheet metal for
tinplate and most size pipes.” [4] Kaisers deal and his bold productions would see
the companies steel production increase greatly after the war to a point where it
actually is said to have broken steel production records. “Henry J. Kaiser said in a
year-end statement today that a record breaking 853,000 tons of steel ingots were
produced at the Fontana plant in 1948.
Following the war:
… the [Kaiser] Health Plan in Fontana went public, and with the strong support of
labor unions like the Retail Clerks International Union and the International
Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union it began to grow throughout the region.
The first facility outside of Fontana was established in Harbor City in 1950 when
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
the entire West Coast ILWU signed up for the plan. (Cushing 2013)
At that time, Henry Kaiser expanded his efforts beyond the steel mill itself and into experimental
aviation and mass-produced housing. Although his “venture into experimental aviation was short-
lived,” he had “substantial success” in the field of mass-produced housing. “For two decades he
had been building homes for his dam and shipyard workers, even master planning entire
communities” (Cornford 1995). “Shortly after V-J Day Kaiser dramatically announced a ‘housing
revolution’” consisting of “‘a nearly 100 mile plant-to-site assembly line’ in Southern California
(where he predicted that immigration would reach a million per year in the immediate postwar
period)” (Cornford 1995). This assembly line consisted of the “construction of ten thousand
prefabricated homes in the Westchester, North Hollywood, and Panorama City areas” (Cornford
1995):
After the turbulent, sometimes violent, transitions of the 1940s, Fontana settled
down into the routines of a young milltown. The Korean War boom enlarged the
Kaiser workforce by almost 50 per cent and stimulated a new immigration from the
East that reinforced the social weight of traditional steelworker families. The
company devoted new resources to organizing the leisure time of its employees,
while the union took a more active role in the community. The complex craft
subcultures of the plant intersected with ethnic self-organization to generate
competing cliques and differential pathways for mobility. At the same time, the
familiar sociology of plant-community interaction was overlaid by lifestyles
peculiar to Fontana’s Millerian heritage and its location on the borders of
metropolitan Los Angeles and the Mojave Desert. Although locals continued to
joke that Fontana was just Aliquippa with sunshine, it was evolving into a sui
generis working-class community. (Cornford 1995).
The increased immigration to the area during and after the war created a housing boom
equivalent to that seen in other areas focused upon wartime production, such as San Diego (City
of San Diego 2007) and Seattle (Stropes et al. 2019). One of the most common architectural styles
during the Post-war boom was the Minimal Traditional style. Between 1935 and 1950, the
Minimal Traditional home was one of the few designs approved by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA). “In an explosion of building at the war’s end, 5.1 million homes were built
between 1946 and 1949. Minimal Traditionals made up a significant portion of these” (McAlester
2015). “By 1950 the Minimal Traditional was being replaced by Ranch homes. Postwar prosperity
meant that larger homes could be built and financed, and the Ranch was a perfect fit for the tastes
of a new decade” (McAlester 2015).
The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952 “and shortly after, the freeway
system in LA would start to divert traffic away from Route 66” (Whittall 2020). However, despite
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–20
traffic being diverted away from the Fontana area:
In the 1950s and ’60s, Fontana was home to a drag racing strip that was a venue in
the NHRA circuit. Mickey Thompson’s Fontana International Dragway was also
referred to as Fontana Drag City or Fontana Drag Strip. The original Fontana strip
is long since defunct, but the owners of NASCAR’s new Auto Club
Speedway opened a new NHRA-sanctioned drag strip in Fontana in mid-2006 to
resurrect Fontana’s drag-racing heritage. (Kiddle Encyclopedia 2022)
“In 1964, Route 66 was replaced by the freeway and two years later, Fontana joined the city of
Duarte trying to have a large sign posted in San Bernardino to announce that Route 66 remained a
through route into Los Angeles, they failed” (Whittall 2020).
Kaiser Steel was eventually closed in the 1980s; however, 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 2018).
1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
The SCCIC records search results indicate that 28 resources have been recorded within
one-half mile of the project, none of which are located within the subject property (Table 1.3–1).
The recorded resources include 27 historic single-family properties and one historic farm complex.
No prehistoric resources were identified within one-half mile of the project.
Table 1.3–1
Archaeological Sites Recorded Within One-Half Mile of the
Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
Site(s) Description
P-36-026971 Historic farm complex
P-36-013862, P-36-013863, P-36-013864,
P-36-026954, P-36-026955, P-36-026956,
P-36-026957, P-36-026958, P-36-026959,
P-36-026960, P-36-026961, P-36-026963,
P-36-026964, P-36-026965, P-36-026966,
P-36-026967, P-36-026968, P-36-026969,
P-36-026970, P-36-027105, P-36-027106,
P-36-027107, P-36,027108, P-36-027109,
P-36-027110, P-36-027111,
and SBR-29,056H
Historic single-family residence
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–21
The records search data also indicates that 10 cultural resource studies have been conducted
within a one-half-mile radius of the subject property, one of which (McKenna 2002) intersects the
subject property. The 2002 study by McKenna covered the very easternmost portion of the project
(APN 255-021-17) in support of the Jurupa Hills Middle School construction project. No cultural
resources were identified within the project as a result of this study. The full records search results
are provided in Appendix C.
The following historic sources were also reviewed:
• The National Register of Historic Places Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of
Eligibility
• The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory
• The USGS 1896 and 1955 San Bernardino and 1943 and 1969 Fontana topographic
maps
With the exception of the 13 buildings identified during the survey that were constructed between
1944 and 1969 (see Section 3.3 for detailed descriptions and evaluations), no additional resources
were identified as a result of any of the above sources.
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC, which did not indicate the presence
of any sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project. All
correspondence can be found in Appendix D.
The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for prehistoric
sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property due to the extensive nature of past
ground disturbances and the lack of natural resources often associated with prehistoric sites. The
records search and literature review suggest that historic buildings and sites associated with the
agricultural history of the Fontana area are the most likely cultural resources to be encountered
within the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project. Therefore, based upon the
records search results, there is a high potential for historic resources to be located within the
project.
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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–22
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 CRHR (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title
14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting
the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically
or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant
unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or
culturally significant.
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military,
or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided
the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the
whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
“historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC
SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of
the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section
5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–23
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 upon archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the
guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and
site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains
unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant
effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect
upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–24
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 Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana 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 Citrus and Oleander Avenue at
Santa Ana Avenue Project included the survey of a 24.43-acre area and the assessment of 13
buildings constructed between 1944 and 1969. Given the area involved, the research design for
this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation
was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not
necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern
California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources. Nevertheless, the
assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of
characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address regional research topics and issues.
Although survey programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available,
several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial
investigations of any observed cultural resources:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or
individual?
• Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined
from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site
function? What resources were exploited?
• How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted
in the area?
• How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for the
region?
For the historic structures located within the project, the research process was focused upon
the built environment and those individuals associated with the ownership, design, and
construction of the buildings within the project footprint. Although historic structure evaluations
are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions
were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed historic
resources:
• Can the building be associated with any significant individuals or events?
• Is the building representative of a specific type, style, or method of construction?
• Is the building associated with any nearby structures? Does the building, when studied
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–2
with the nearby structures, qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district?
• Was the building designed or constructed by a significant architect, designer, builder,
or contractor?
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of
changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The
overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area
occupants. Further, the overall goal of the historic structure assessment is to understand the
construction and use of the buildings within their associated historic context. Therefore, adequate
information on site function, context, and chronology from both an archaeological and historic
perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken
with the following primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural and historic resources occurring within the project;
2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and
chronological placement of each cultural resource identified, and the type, style, and
method of construction for any buildings;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective;
4) To identify persons or events associated with any buildings and their construction; and
5) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural and historic resource
identified.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana 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 24.43-acre project, and the detailed recordation of
all identified cultural resources. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Fontana
environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory
requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of
resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those
established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Archival Research
Records relating to the ownership and developmental history of this project were sought to
identify any associated historic persons, historic events, or architectural significance. Records
research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the SCCIC, the Fontana Historical Society,
the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County
Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public
Library. Appendix E contains maps of the property, including historic USGS maps from 1896,
1943, 1955, 1959, 1969, 1975, 1980, and 1985 and the current Assessor’s parcel map. No Sanborn
maps are available as the property is outside the Fontana coverage areas.
3.1.2 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard
archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the
project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey
transects set approximately 10 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, including
all potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located. Photographs documenting
survey discoveries and overall survey conditions were taken frequently. All cultural resources
were recorded as necessary according to the OHP’s manual, Instructions for Recording Historical
Resources, using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms.
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment
Methods for evaluating the integrity and significance of the historic buildings within APNs
255-011-13, -14, -18, -19, and -25 to -30 included photographic documentation and review of
available archival documents. During the survey, photographs were taken of all building
elevations. The photographs were used to complete architectural descriptions of the buildings.
The original core structures and all modifications made to the buildings since their initial
construction were also recorded. The current setting of the buildings was compared to the
historical setting of the property. This information was combined with the archival research in
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
order to evaluate the buildings’ seven aspects of integrity and their potential significance under
CEQA guidelines.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
BFSA Field Director Clarence Hoff conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on March
15, 2022 under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian Smith. Ground visibility was limited
across approximately 50 percent of the project due to residential development and associated
landscaping (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–6). Visibility of the ground surface in the undeveloped areas was
good, except for occasional areas of high grasses and weeds. As a result of the field survey, 13
single-family residences and outbuildings constructed between 1944 and 1969 were identified at
10 separate properties (APNs 255-011-13, -14, -18, -19, and -25 to -30). The historic-age buildings
have been recorded as sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 with the SCCIC (Figure 3.2–1) and were
subsequently evaluated for significance as part of this study. No other cultural resources were
observed during the survey of the project.
3.3 Historic Structure Analysis
Within the boundaries of the subject property, 13 historic-age buildings have been
identified (see Table 0.1–1 and Figure 3.3–1). DPR site forms were submitted to the SCCIC on
September 30, 2022. Once processed, the SCCIC will assign the new resources permanent site
numbers. The following section provides the pertinent field results for the significance evaluations
for sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 located within the project boundaries, which were conducted in
accordance with City of Fontana guidelines and site evaluation protocols. Descriptions and
significance evaluations of the historic resources are provided below.
3.3.1 History of the Project Area
Site Temp-1 (10818 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-28)
The County of San Bernardino Parcel Information Management System (PIMS) indicates
that the 10818 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1968 while the property was owned
by either Philip P. and Josephine Modica, or Raymond L. and Marion J. Berry, who purchased the
property from the Modicas in December of that year.
Philip and Josephine (née LoPorto) Modica were both born in Italy in 1909 and 1911,
respectively. Josephine Modica moved to the United States with her family in 1920, settling in
Bloomington, California (Ancestry.com 2002). In 1933, Philip and Josephine Modica had a
daughter, Mary Ann (Ancestry.com 2005). In 1940, they lived on East 5th Street in Ontario,
California, where Philip owned a liquor store (Ancestry.com 2012a). By 1950, they had moved to
Rice Road in Riverside, California, where Philip worked as a rancher (Ancestry.com 2022a).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–8
The Modicas originally owned much of the area surrounding the project, including farm
lots 749, 756, and 757 (APNs 255-011-27 and -28) of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company.
Farm lots 749 and 756 were sold in 1956; however, the subject property, “the East five acres of
Farm Lot 757,” was not sold until 1968 (San Bernardino County Sun 1956). According to PIMS
ownership records, in 1969, Farm Lot 757 was further divided into “the North 150 feet” (APN
255-011-27) and “the South 150 feet [APN 255-011-28] of the North 300 feet of the East 5 acres.”
After purchasing the property from the Modicas in December 1968, the Berrys only owned
the property for one year and in 1969, sold to husband and wife, LeRoy Edward Perez, Jr. and
Alice Marie Perez. Raymond Berry was born in Iowa in 1919 and Marion Berry in India in 1922.
In 1950, the Berrys were living in El Monte, California, where Raymond worked as a cabinet
maker (Ancestry.com 2022a). By 1953, his occupation was listed in city directories as a building
contractor (Ancestry.com 2011a).
As Berry was a building contractor in the 1950s and 1960s and the 10818 Oleander Avenue
building was constructed in 1968 while owned by either the Modicas or the Berrys, it is likely that
Berry built the residence, subdivided the property, and then sold the northern half, which included
the 10818 Oleander Avenue building, to LeRoy and Alice Perez. Berry likely also constructed the
10840 Oleander Avenue residence (Temp-2; APN 255-011-27); however, no information about
other buildings outside the project constructed by Berry could be located. By 1993, Berry was
living in Upland, California, where he passed away in 2003 (Ancestry.com 2010a, 2014a).
LeRoy Perez, Jr. was born in Saticoy, California, in 1940 (Ancestry.com 2020) and in
1960, he married Alice (Press-Enterprise 2010). The couple moved into the home at 10818
Oleander Avenue in 1969 after purchasing it from the Berrys. Very little information about the
Perez family could be located other than the two having a daughter in 1976 (San Bernardino
County Sun 1976). The Perezes owned the property until 2000, when LeRoy Perez, Jr. quitclaimed
ownership to Alice after they were divorced. LeRoy Perez, Jr. passed away in Riverside,
California, and Alice Perez is still the current owner of the property.
Site Temp-2 (10840 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-27)
The 10840 Oleander Avenue building was constructed on APN 255-011-27, which is
described as the “South 150 feet of the North 300 feet of the East five acres of Farm Lot 757.”
The County of San Bernardino PIMS indicates that the 10840 Oleander Avenue building was
constructed in 1969 while the property was owned by either Raymond and Marion Berry or John
B. and Judy M. Roberts, who purchased the property from the Berrys in March of that year. Since
Raymond Berry was a building contractor in the 1950s and 1960s and the 10840 Oleander Avenue
building was constructed in 1969 while owned by either the Berrys or the Robertses, it is likely
that Berry built the residence, subdivided the property, and then sold the southern portion,
including the 10840 Oleander Avenue building, to John and Judy Roberts.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–9
John Roberts, Jr. was born in 1945 and Judy (née Gage) (Plate
3.3–1) in 1948. John and Judy Roberts were married in 1968
(Ancestry.com 2017a). At the time, Judy was a recent graduate of
Bloomington High School and John worked for Bourns Laboratories,
Inc. (San Bernardino County Sun 1968). Bourns Laboratories, Inc.
designed, developed, and tested precision instruments for aircraft and
guided missiles (San Bernardino County Sun 1952a). The couple
owned the property until 1972, when they sold it to Cletis Joseph and
Darlyne Nellie Ross.
Cletis Ross was born in Nebraska in 1920. He was enlisted in
the Military Police Corps in June 1945 for a two- to three-year service
(Ancestry.com 2019). In 1948, he married Darlyne Weiler in
Enumclaw, Washington. By 1950, the couple had two children,
Marlene and Milton, and had moved to King, Washington, where
Cletis worked as a timber faller (Ancestry.com 2022a). Records
indicate that the family lived in Montana, New Mexico, and
Washington before moving to the 10840 Oleander Avenue property
in 1970, where Cletis worked as a truck driver (San Bernardino
County Sun 1973).
In 1976, Daniel W. and Elizabeth A. (née Robley)
Warner purchased the property. Elizabeth Warner (Plate 3.3–2)
was born in New York in 1947 and Daniel Warner in New York
in 1943 (Ancestry.com 2020, 2022a). The couple was married
in New York in 1966 (Ancestry.com 2017b).
A year after purchasing the 10840 Oleander Avenue
property, Daniel Warner began a company called RW Ranch
with his father-in-law, Robert Robley. The RW Ranch was
located at 13955 Santa Ana Avenue, to the east of the subject
property (San Bernardino County Sun 1977). In 1988, Daniel
Warner opened a new business at the 10840 Oleander Avenue
address called Snack Masters of the Universe (San Bernardino
County Sun 1988).
In 1992, a Linda Warner was recorded as residing at the
10840 Oleander Avenue property, then in 1994, the property
was listed for sale as a horse property (Ancestry.com 2010a; San
Bernardino County Sun 1994), at which time it appears the
Warner family moved to Aurora, Colorado (San Bernardino
County Sun 1996). However, the property was not officially sold until 1997, when it was
purchased by Jose and Armando Alvarado.
Plate 3.3‒1: Judy Roberts.
(Photograph courtesy of
San Bernardino County
Sun 1968)
Plate 3.3‒2: Elizabeth Warner.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–10
Between 2001 and 2002, the property was occupied by a M. Alvarado (Ancestry.com
2005). In 2002, Armando Alvarado transferred his share of the property to Jose and Luz Alvarado,
who are the current owners of the property.
Site Temp-3 (10864 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-26)
The 10864 Oleander Avenue building was constructed on APN 0255-011-26, which is
described as the “South 150 feet of the North 450 feet of the East five acres of Farm Lot 757.”
The County of San Bernardino PIMS indicates that the 10864 Oleander Avenue building was
constructed in 1969 while the property was owned by either Jerry LeRoy and Audrey Jean Nugent
or Monty D., Suzanne R., Albert O., and Phyllis I. Fisher, who purchased the property from the
Nugents in April of that year. Jerry Nugent was a building contractor and likely constructed the
10864 Oleander Avenue residence.
Jerry Nugent was born in Michigan in 1937.
Between 1940 and 1950, he had moved to San
Bernardino with his parents and sister (Ancestry.com
2022a). In 1956, he married Audrey Coffey of
Montana in Clark County, Nevada (Plate 3.3–3)
(Ancestry.com 2007a).
Jerry Nugent worked as a building contractor
and land developer and, in 1964, he purchased a 58-
acre parcel in Rialto with Raymond Berry and two
couples, likely as a development investment (San
Bernardino County Sun 1964a). That same year,
Edna Rybczynski and Jerry Nugent filed a tentative
tract map “for a nine-lot subdivision on the south side
of Athol Street between Lemon Street and Oleander
Avenue” (San Bernardino County Sun 1964b). In
1965, the City of Fontana Planning Commission
approved the map for three of the lots (San Bernardino County Sun 1965a).
In 1966, the Nugents were living on Merrill Avenue but were building a new home on
Blanchard Avenue (San Bernardino County Sun 1966). No records could be located indicating
that they ever lived at the 10864 Oleander Avenue property. In the 1970s, Jerry Nugent applied
for year-long extensions for tract maps on San Bernardino Avenue and Cypress Avenue; however,
it is unclear if either planned development was ever constructed by Nugent (San Bernardino
County Sun 1974, 1975). By 1978, the Nugents had moved to Loma Linda, where they lived until
their deaths in 2006 (Jerry) and 2019 (Audrey) (Ancestry.com 2022b).
The 10864 Oleander Avenue property was purchased by two couples, Monty and Suzanne
(née Morariu) Fisher and Monty’s parents, Albert and Phyllis (née Meier) Fisher in 1969
(Ancestry.com 2007b). Monty, Albert, and Phyllis Fisher were all born in Illinois in 1947, 1923,
Plate 3.3‒3: Audrey and Jerry Nugent.
(Photograph courtesy of San
Bernardino Sun 1965b)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–11
and 1922, respectively. Albert and Phyllis were married in Illinois in 1943 (Freeport Journal-
Standard 1943). By 1950, they still lived in Illinois where Albert Fisher worked as a machinist
(Ancestry.com 2022a). Between 1950 and 1952, Albert and Phyllis Fisher relocated to Compton,
California, where Albert worked as a machinist for Western
Gear Works (Ancestry.com 2011a).
Monty Fisher primarily grew up in the Los Angeles
area and went to Downey High School. He transferred to
Dakota High School in Dakota, Illinois, for his senior year
(Plate 3.3–4). After graduating, Monty Fisher returned to
California and married Suzanne Morariu in Los Angeles in
1967 when she was 18 and he was 20 (Ancestry.com 2007c).
Monty and Suzanne Fisher were divorced in 1972 and in 1973,
Suzanne quitclaimed her portion of the 10864 Oleander
Avenue property to Monty and his parents (Ancestry.com
2007b). In 1974, Monty Fisher quitclaimed his portion of the
property to his parents.
It is unclear if Monty and Suzanne Fisher resided at the
property the entire time they owned it, but public records
indicate that Albert and Phyllis Fisher resided at the home in
1987. Records also indicate that Monty Fisher lived at the
home between 1989 and 2020, an Angelique Fisher lived at
the home between 1991 and 1995, and a Jean Fisher lived at the home between 2000 and 2009. It
is unclear what the relationship is between Monty Fisher and Angelique and Jean Fisher.
After Albert Fisher passed away in 2005 and Phyllis Fisher passed away in 2019,
ownership of the property transferred back to Monty Fisher and his then wife, Tina Wang Fisher,
in 2021. Monty and Tina Fisher are the current owners of the property.
Site Temp-4 (10888 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-25)
The 10888 Oleander Avenue building was constructed on APN 255-011-25, which is
described as the “East five acres of Farm Lot 757… EXCEPT therefrom the North 450 feet.” The
County of San Bernardino PIMS indicates that the 10888 Oleander Avenue building was
constructed in 1969 while the property was owned by either Jerry and Audrey Nugent or Edward
F. Zinger, who purchased the property from the Nugents in March of that year. Since Jerry Nugent
was a building contractor and developer, he likely constructed the 10888 Oleander Avenue
residence.
Edward Zinger was born in Iowa in 1913. “He grew up in Davenport and moved to
California in 1959” (The Dispatch 1991). Zinger purchased the property from the Nugents in 1969
and in 1970, married Glenna Anne Doubles (Ancestry.com 2007c). In 1975, Glenna Zinger was
added to the title. The couple lived at the home until 1985, when they moved to Poulsbo,
Plate 3.3‒4: Monty Fisher in 1965.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–12
Washington (The Dispatch 1991) and sold the property to Patrick Scott Mervine, Jr.
Mervine appears to have lived at the home with his parents, Patrick J. and Darriel Mervine
and his brother, Steven Mervine. Patrick Mervine, Jr. was born in Orange, California, in 1963 and
in 1983, “completed recruit training at the Naval Training Center, San Diego” (San Bernardino
County Sun 1983). Steven Mervine graduated from Fontana High School in 1982 and joined the
Marines in November 1983. In 1985, Steven Mervine “completed the aviation electricians mate
course” (San Bernardino County Sun 1985a).
Public records indicate that in 1988, Theresa Mervine, likely Patrick Mervine, Jr.’s sister,
was recorded as living at 10888 Oleander Avenue and between 1988 and 2008, Shannon G.
Derrick is recorded as living at the home. In 1989, Lyndon R. Wood resided at the property and
in 1990, Patrick Mervine, Jr. resided at the property. In 1993, Darriel Mervine lived at the home.
In 1995, Patrick Mervine, Jr. added his father, Patrick Mervine, Sr., to the deed, but then sold the
property to Leonard P. and Shannon G. (née) Zarzecki.
Between 1998 and 2006, Patricia A. Thomas was recorded as residing at the home and
between 1998 and 2008, Leonard Zarzecki, Jr. lived at the property. In 2000, the property was
sold to Vicente Coronado, who lived at the home until at least 2002. In 2005, the property was
sold to Jose M. Carpio. Between 2005 and 2013, Carpio resided at the property and between 2008
and 2012, Adriana Carpio is also listed as residing at 10888 Oleander Avenue. Between 2002 and
2010, Miguel Angel Garza lived at the home.
In 2011, the property was seized by Bank of America. In 2012, it was sold to Javier and
Consuelo Wells Romero, who quitclaimed it to Bank of America, who quitclaimed it to THPI
Acquisition Holdings, LLC. THPI Acquisition Holdings, LLC changed its name to SB TRS, LLC
in 2013 and then sold the property to Casina Huang. Huang is the current owner of the property,
but does not appear to have ever lived at the home. The 10888 Oleander Avenue property was
occupied by Linda J. Arias between 2015 and 2017, Cathie H. Arias between 2015 and 2018, and
Jose M. Arias between 2015 and 2019.
Site Temp-5 (16140 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-29)
The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed on APN 255-011-29, which is
described as “Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 5352.” The County of San Bernardino PIMS indicates
that the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in 1954. Unfortunately, title records
for the property prior to 1979 could not be located; however, Kele and Rosa Fox were recorded as
residing at the property in 1956. As they were also recorded as residing in Los Angeles County
that year, it is likely that 1956 is when they moved to the property (Ancestry.com 2011a).
Kele Fox was born in Poland in 1894 (Plate 3.3–5). He immigrated to the United States
from Belgium in 1914 and lived in Denver, New York, El Paso, and Los Angeles (Ancestry.com
2007d). His wife, Rosaline Soldoff, was born in Canada in 1904. The couple was married in Los
Angeles in 1926 but moved to Canada between 1927 and 1929 until 1933 (Ancestry.com 2014b).
In 1940, the Foxes lived in Belvedere, California, where Kele was the proprietor of a grocery store
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–13
(Ancestry.com 2012a). He joined the United States Navy in 1942
as an apprentice seaman and received the rating of painter third
class (Santa Maria Times 1942a, 1942b). From 1942 to 1944, the
foxes lived in Santa Barbara, where Kele worked as a painter
(Ancestry.com 2011a). By 1950, they had moved to Los Angeles,
where he was a housepainter (Ancestry.com 2022a). The Foxes
moved to 16140 Santa Ana Avenue circa 1956, where they built
two large chicken houses (see Temp-10; APN 255-011-30).
From 1956 to 1960, the property address is listed as 16140
Santa Ana Avenue; however, in 1962, the address provided for
the Foxes in voter registration records is 10861 Citrus Avenue
(Ancestry.com 2017c). The 10861 Citrus Avenue building
(Temp-10; APN 255-011-30). According to aerial imagery,
between 1959 and 1966, a prefabricated home was relocated to
the property. Kele and Rose Fox had moved back to Santa
Barbara by 1973, where Kele Fox passed away in 1976 (Ancestry.com 2011a).
Rose Fox continued to own the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue property until 1979. However,
no directories could be located indicating who resided at the property between 1960, when the
Foxes moved, and 1979, when Rose Fox sold it to Arthur and Vivian Truex and Don Walker. In
1979, the property was vacant, but the 10861 Citrus Avenue and 16140 Santa Ana Avenue
residences were damaged by vandals (San Bernardino County Sun 1979).
Arthur L. Truex was born in Virginia in 1934. His family lived in Ohio in 1940, but by
1950, had moved to Arizona where his father was a mechanic (Ancestry.com 2012a, 2022a). They
appear to have returned to Ohio not long after, as in 1953, Arthur
Truex married Betty Katherine Blue in Ohio (Lima News 1953).
Arthur and Betty Truex lived in Ohio after their marriage and had
three children together, but in 1959, were divorced (Lima Citizen
1959, 1962). No records could be located regarding when Arthur
and Vivian Truex were married or if they ever lived at the 16140
Santa Ana Avenue property, which they sold the same year they
purchased it to Homero R. and Rose Marie Mora.
Homero Mora was born in Mexico in 1945 (Plate 3.3–6).
In 1972, at 26 years old, he married 24-year-old Rose Marie Bustos
in Los Angeles (Ancestry.com 2007c). After 1979, they lived at
the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue property where, according to
ownership records, Homero Mora worked as a plumbing laborer for
32 years. Homero Mora passed away in 2018 and ownership of the property passed to Rose Marie,
who is the current owner.
Plate 3.3‒5: Kele Fox in 1923.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Plate 3.3‒6: Homero Mora.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–14
Site Temp-6 (16156 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-19)
The 16156 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed on APN 255-011-19, which was
originally part of “the East 3 acres of the West 8 acres of Farm Lot 757.” The County of San
Bernardino PIMS indicates that the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in 1954.
The property was owned by the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles between 1946
and 1950. Unfortunately, title records for the property could not be located for the period between
1950 and 1972. However, Mrs. Nina L. Todd was recorded as residing at the property in 1958.
She passed away in 1967 and her obituary indicates that she had resided in Fontana for 12 years
(San Bernardino County Sun 1967a), which coincides with the 1954 construction date of the 16156
Santa Ana Avenue residence in which she lived. According to the deed, Todd’s husband, Glenn
Ezra Todd, took ownership of the property between 1967 and 1970 as a widower and he remarried
in 1970 (Ancestry.com 2007c).
Glenn Todd was born in Missouri in 1904. Glenn and Nina (née Estes) Todd were married
in Oklahoma in 1924 (Ancestry.com 2016). In 1930, the couple was living on a farm in Etiwanda,
California, where Nina was a servant in the home where they lived and Glenn was a lodger working
on the farm as a laborer (Ancestry.com 2002). By 1942, they were living in Orange, California,
where Glenn worked for the University of Redlands (Ancestry.com 2011b). In 1950, while still
living in Redlands, he worked as a ranch hand and Nina as a nurse at a rest home (Ancestry.com
2022a). No voter registration records or directory listings could be located for Glenn Todd after
1950 and, as such, it is unclear if he lived at the home with Nina, by himself, or with his second
wife after Nina’s death in 1967.
In 1972, Glenn Todd sold the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue
property to Howard E. and Alberta C. Cunningham (Plate 3.3–7).
Howard Cunningham was born in Nebraska in 1931 and had
moved to Missouri with his family by the age of nine. It is unclear
when Cunningham moved from Nebraska; however, in 1963, he
married Alberta Constance Sherman in Nevada (Ancestry.com
2007a). Alberta Cunningham was born in Illinois in 1926 where
she lived until at least 1959 (Ancestry.com 2008). It is unknown
if the couple lived at the 16156 Santa Ana Avenue property after
purchasing it in 1972. In 1975, they were divorced (Ancestry.com
2007b) and the property was split in half. Howard Cunningham
quitclaimed “the West one-half” of the property (APN 255-011-
19) to Alberta in 1976 and retained the eastern half (APN 255-
011-18). Alberta Cunningham owned her portion of the property
for two more years before selling to Robert Lee and Kristina Krueger Warren in 1978.
Robert Lee Warren was born in 1949 and was recorded as residing at the 16156 Santa Ana
Avenue property in 1983. The couple divorced and in 1991, Kristina married Stephen Nakagawa
(Ancestry.com 2007a). In 1994, Robert Warren transferred his share of the property to Kristina.
Plate 3.3‒7: Alberta
Cunningham.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–15
That same year, Nakagawa also quitclaimed his share of the property to Kristina Krueger-
Nakagawa, who is the current owner of the property.
Site Temp-7 (16172 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-18)
The 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed APN 255-011-18, which was
originally part of “the East 3 acres of the West 8 acres of Farm Lot 757.” The County of San
Bernardino PIMS indicates that 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in 1944;
however, based upon aerial photographs, no structures are present on the property until the period
between 1967 and 1980. As such, it is likely that the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building was
moved to its current location between those dates.
APNs 255-011-18 and -19 were not separated until 1976 and prior to that time, the property
was owned by the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles from 1946 to 1950. From 1954 to
1972, the property was likely owned by Glenn and Nina Todd and then Howard Cunningham from
1972 until 1977. In 1977, Howard Cunningham sold APN 255-011-18, which by then included
the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue residence, to Homer Norman and Betty Ann Silacci.
Homer Silacci was born in 1926 in San Luis Obispo, California, where he lived until at
least 1962 working as a truck driver for Pacific Motor Trucking (Ancestry.com 2011a). In 1959,
he married Betty Ann Wooley of Utica, Minnesota in Monterey, California (Ancestry.com 2013).
The couple had moved to Santa Barbara by 1964 (Ancestry.com 2011a) and appear to have lived
at 16172 Santa Ana Avenue from 1977 until Betty Silacci’s death in 2008 (Ancestry.com 2010a).
Homer Silacci retained ownership of the property until 2016, when Steve Cox was given
conservatorship. That same year, Cox sold the property to Summer Coulter, Joshua Hayes-
McKeirnan, Michala McKeirnan, Thomas Taylor Vicky Rojano Taylor, and John Carlo. In 2018,
John Carlo gifted his portion of the property to Summer Coulter.
Site Temp-8 (16204 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-14)
The 16204 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed on
APN 255-011-14, which is described as “the West 2 acres of the west
5 acres of the east 10 acres of Lot 757.” The County of San
Bernardino PIMS indicates that the 16204 Santa Ana Avenue
building was constructed in 1949 when the property was owned by
Jesse O. and Emma H. Weirich.
Jesse Weirich was born in Ohio in 1889 (Plate 3.3–8). In
1910, he married his first wife, Florence Wilson, in Ohio. The
couple lived in Ohio until sometime between 1910 and 1914. In
1920, they were recorded in census documents as living in Colorado with their three children.
While in Colorado, Jesse Weirich worked as a farmer (Ancestry.com 2010b). By 1930, the couple
had divorced and Jesse Weirich returned to Ohio where he worked as a machinist at an automotive
plant (Ancestry.com 2002). By 1940, Weirich had married Emma Henrietta Dailey and the couple
Plate 3.3‒8: Jesse Weirich.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–16
lived in Ohio with her three children from previous marriages. In 1940, Jesse Weirich was
employed as a plumber (Ancestry.com 2012a).
Emma Weirich was born in Ohio in 1899. She married her first husband, Jesse Van Cise,
in Michigan in 1916 and her second husband, John Condron, in Ohio in 1931 (Ancestry.com
2015a). After their marriage, sometime around 1948, Jesse and Emma Weirich moved to Fontana
(San Bernardino County Sun 1952b). Although they were listed as residing at the same home in
the 1950 Federal Census (Ancestry.com 2022a), in 1952, Jesse Weirich was recorded as living at
1213 South Oleander Avenue and Emma at 1430 Santa Ana Avenue (Ancestry.com 2017c).
Emma Weirich passed away in 1952 (San Bernardino County Sun 1952b).
It is unclear if Jesse Weirich sold the property after Emma’s death and no records could be
located indicating where he may have lived between 1952 and 1959. Jesse Weirich passed away
from lung cancer in Long Beach, California in 1959. The address given in his obituary is 10375
Oleander Avenue, which is located north of the current project (San Bernardino County Sun 1959).
Ownership records for the property could not be located for the years between 1951 and
1978. In 1955, Esther Nemeth Meszaros was reported to have lived at the 16204 Santa Ana
Avenue residence, but she died that same year. Her obituary indicates that she had only lived in
Fontana for two years (San Bernardino County Sun 1955a). As such, the earliest she could have
moved into the home is 1953. It is unknown if she owned the home or just resided there.
Meszaros was born in Hungary in 1872 and immigrated to the United States in 1903 (San
Bernardino County Sun 1955b; Ancestry.com 2010c, 2015b).
Meszaros’s daughter, Lena Meszaros (Plate 3.3–9), was born in
Hungary in 1899 and immigrated to the United States with her mother
in 1903. In 1921, Lena Meszaros married Mike Deme in Ohio
(Ancestry.com 2010d), with whom she had two children, Michael and
Carolina, in 1925 and 1926, respectively. Mike Deme passed away in
1930 (Ancestry.com 2015c). In 1934, Lena married John Catlek;
however, the couple had divorced by 1946 (Ancestry.com 2014b). In
1950, Esther and Lena lived in Los Angeles with Lena’s son, Michael
(Ancestry.com 2022a).
A year after Esther Maszaros’s death, Lena and her then
husband, Fayne Jenkins, were recorded as residing at the 16204 Santa
Ana Avenue property. However, by 1958, they had moved to Beech Street (Ancestry.com 2017c).
It is unknown if the Jenkins family owned the home or just resided in it. Fayne Jenkins was a
native of Missouri who came to Fontana from Los Angeles around 1952 to work as a machinist at
Convair Aircraft in Pomona. He passed away in Fontana in 1960 (San Bernardino County Sun
1960).
Plate 3.3‒9: Lena (née
Meszaros) Deme.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–17
It is unknown who owned or lived in the home from 1957
to 1970, but in 1971, Mr. and Mrs. Larry E. Franklin lived at 16204
Santa Ana Avenue (Progress Bulletin 1971). In 1978, Michael D.
McAleese sold the property to Thomas Watkins. No records could
be located regarding when McAleese acquired the property or if he
ever resided there. A year after he purchased the property, Watkins
added husband and wife Philip Quesada and Delia De Quesada to
the deed. In 1980, Watkins was removed from the deed.
Philip Quesada was born in Los Angeles in 1930 and based
upon family photographs, served in the United States Navy as a
young man (Plate 3.3–10). In 1966, he married Delia J. Gutierrez.
In the 2000s, Philip Quesada worked as a machinist. The Quesadas
owned and lived at the 16204 Santa Ana Avenue property until
Philip passed away in 2012, at which time Delia De Quesada
became the sole and current owner.
Site Temp-9 (16228 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-13)
The 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed on
APN 255-011-13, which is described as “the East 3 acres of the
West 5 acres of the East 10 acres of Farm Lot 757.” The County of
San Bernardino PIMS indicates that the 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in
1947.
In 1945, Harry M. and Elaine M. Beidler purchased the property from Paul E. and Hazel
R. Robinson. Harry Beidler was born in Illinois in 1901. In 1939, he married Elaine M. Rowley
of Missouri in California (Ancestry.com 2017a). The couple settled in Los Angeles where Harry
Beidler worked as a salesman at a stationary shop and Elaine Beidler was a cook at a public café
(Ancestry.com 2012a). In 1941, Harry Beidler was working for Douglas Aircraft Corporation in
El Segundo, California (Ancestry.com 2011b). In 1949, Elaine Beidler worked as a saleswoman
for Sears Roebuck & Company (Sears) (Ancestry.com 2011a). By 1966, she was the assistant
manager of Sears. Elaine Beidler passed away in 1966 and ownership of the property was
transferred to Harry Beidler. Following Elaine’s death, Harry moved to San Diego (Ancestry.com
2011a) while retaining ownership of the property until 1975, at which time he sold it to Carl M.
and Irene B. Senee.
Carl Senee was born in 1931 and served in the Korean War as a young man (Ancestry.com
2012b). In 1971, he married Irene Siewert Praefke in Las Vegas (Ancestry.com 2007a). Irene
Siewert was born in Wisconsin in 1922 where she lived until at least 1950. Between 1940 and
1950, she married Russell Praefke (Ancestry.com 2012a, 2022a). The Praefkes were divorced in
1970 and a year later, Irene married Carl Senee (Ancestry.com 2007c). Before and after their
marriage, Irene Senee worked as a secretary for State Farm Insurance. She held the position for
Plate 3.3‒10: Philip Quesada.
(Photograph courtesy of
Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–18
30 years before passing away from cancer in 1978. Following her death, ownership of the property
transferred to Carl. Public records list two separate addresses for Carl between 1983 and 2005
and, as such, it is not clear where he resided during that time. One of the addresses was the 16228
Santa Ana Avenue residence and the other was a residence on Ceres Avenue in Fontana.
Carl Senee passed away in 2005 and the property was sold by his estate administrators,
Charlene Camargo and Cherlene Kibble, to Pacific Paradise Asset Management, LLC, the current
owner of the property.
Site Temp-10 (10861 Citrus Avenue – APN 255-011-30)
The 10861 Citrus Avenue building was constructed on APN 255-011-30, which is
described as “Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5352.” The County of San Bernardino PIMS indicates that
the 10861 Citrus Avenue building was constructed in 1941 with an effective year of 1946;
however, according to aerial photographs and the San Bernardino County Sun (1962a), the
building was constructed between 1959 and 1962. Unfortunately, title records could not be located
for the property prior to 1979; however, Kele and Rosa Fox were recorded as residing at the
property from 1962 to 1964 (Ancestry.com 2017c). Since they resided at the 16140 Santa Ana
Avenue building from 1954 until 1959 (see Site Temp-5 discussion, above), they likely moved
into the 10861 Citrus Avenue building circa 1960.
In March 1962, the 10861 Citrus Avenue property was listed for sale as a modern chicken
ranch with approximately 6,500 laying hens and two modern houses (San Bernardino County Sun
1962a). The houses advertised are likely the 10861 Citrus Avenue and 16140 Sana Ana Avenue
(Temp-5; APN 255-011-29) single-family residences. Both residences and the chicken houses are
visible on a 1966 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–11). The chicken houses are no longer extant. In
May 1962, an advertisement was run looking for a man to work on the chicken ranch (San
Bernardino County Sun 1962b). In 1963, the property was advertised as Fox Ranch:
[A] modern chicken ranch; approximately 10,500 chickens, approximately 85 cases
eggs wk. Lay houses, grow house, steam brooder, all concrete flrs. Auto water &
lights, foggers, elect. fly killer. Animal protected all bldg. elect. cart, 6 feed tanks,
walk-in cooler. Elect. washer & grader and all other equip. 2 ½ ac. 2 modern
homes, 3 bdrm. & 1 bdrm. (San Bernardino County Sun 1963)
The property continued to be advertised for sale and for a laborer to work on the ranch until 1967
(San Bernardino County Sun 1967b, 1967c).
As stated previously, Kele and Rose Fox had moved back to Santa Barbara by 1973, where
Kele Fox died in 1976 (Ancestry.com 2011a). Rose Fox continued to own the property until 1979.
That year, the property was vacant, but the 10861 Citrus Avenue and 16140 Santa Ana Avenue
(Temp-5; APN 255-011-29) residences were damaged by vandals (San Bernardino County Sun
1979). Afterward, the property was sold to Arthur and Vivian Truex.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–20
In 1980, Arthur and Vivian Truex subdivided the property and sold the portion containing
the 10861 Citrus Avenue building to Rogelio and Bertha Perez. In 1982, the couple had a daughter
(San Bernardino County Sun 1982). In 1984, Rogelio Perez and his uncle, Feliciano Perez, were
arrested for a murder at the Tres Hermanos Bar in Rancho Cucamonga where Rogelio Perez
worked (San Bernardino County Sun 1984). A year later, Rogelio Perez was found guilty (San
Bernardino County Sun 1985b). No information about Bertha Perez could be located.
In 1987, the property was sold at public auction by Rampart Investment Company to the
Federal National Mortgage Association, who then granted ownership of the property to Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development of Washington, D.C. Samuel Pierce. Following the transfer,
Pierce sold the property to Richard L. and Dorothy M.R. Holm.
Richard Luverne Holm was born in South Dakota in 1933 and lived on his family’s farm
until at least 1950 (Ancestry.com 2022a). In 1952, he joined the United States Army where he
served as a parachute rigger (Daily Plainsman 1957). He was discharged in 1958 and that same
year he married Donna Meek (Ancestry.com 2005). In 1983, Donna and Richard Holm were
divorced in Los Angeles, and that same year, Richard married Dorothy Mae Cavin in Las Vegas
(Ancestry.com 2007b). In 1987, Richard and Dorothy Holm purchased the 10861 Citrus Avenue
property.
In the 1990s, Richard Holm was the owner of All Mechanical Construction (San
Bernardino County Sun 1990). Richard Holm passed away in 1994 and in 1997, Dorothy Holm
sold the property to Annette, John, and Patricia Grisafe. According to the Chino Champion (1998):
Mr. [John] Grisafe grew up in the Chicago area and came to California in 1959. He
served with the Navy Seabees from 1959 to 1963, spending part of that time in
Okinawa as the Vietnam War began. A cabinet maker, Mr. Grisafe decided to use
his veteran’s GI Bill to go back to college. He earned his associate of arts degree
from San Bernardino Valley in 1970, and his bachelor of vocational education from
Cal State, Los Angeles in 1974.
In 1998, John and his wife Patricia lived in Fontana, possibly at 10861 Citrus Avenue. After
working for the Chino Valley School District for 29 years, John Grisafe retired (Chino Champion
1998). In 2001, John and Patricia Grisafe transferred ownership to their daughter, Annette. In the
early 1990s, Annette worked as a hair stylist in Grand Terrace (San Bernardino County Sun 1991)
and then as a massage therapist in the late 1990s (San Bernardino County Sun 1998).
In 2006, Annette Grisafe married John Carlo and that year he was added to the 10861 Citrus
Avenue deed. In 2007, the couple sold the property to Mario and Alice Quintanilla, who sold it
back to Annette Carlo in 2008 and she added John onto the deed again that same year. Annette
and John Carlo are the current owners of the property.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–21
3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resources
Site Temp-1 (10818 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-28)
The 10818 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was constructed, likely by Raymond
Berry, in 1968 in the Ranch architectural style. It exhibits a cut-up roof with gable-on-hip and
front-gabled sections, both with a wide eave overhang with fascia and verge boards covering the
eaves. The roof is covered in composite shingles and the building is clad in stucco with a brick
wainscot at the center of the primary (east) facade. The primary (east) façade also features an
arched privacy wall that is set forward from the façade approximately 10 feet and extends across
a majority of the façade. The wall features six arched openings on the east façade and one on the
north façade (Plate 3.3–12).
The third arched opening from the south on the east façade is larger than the others and
features a gabled porch roof above that connects to the residence. Walls extend down from the
southern and northern ends of the porch roof, which creates a partially enclosed front porch
between the residence and the arched wall. The south façade of the front porch features two narrow
windows and the north façade features none. The front, modern wood entry door is located inside
the partially enclosed front porch. On the east façade of the front-gabled portion of the building,
south of the partially enclosed porch, is a large aluminum-framed picture window.
The arched wall and the southern end of the east façade feature sloped walls that imitate a
battered foundation (Plate 3.3–13). Faux beams are present near the top of the arched wall that
feature wrought iron brackets below. Between the arched wall and the residence is a small, paved
courtyard. The portion of the building within the courtyard features a row of aluminum-framed
windows with brick wainscoting below. A secondary entrance is present north of the brick
wainscoting. The portion of the building north of the courtyard features two horizontally oriented,
aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The eave above the southern window is open to
the sky, allowing sunlight into the flower bed below the window.
The north and south façades of the building feature no doors or windows (Plate 3.3–14).
The south façade, however, does feature a stucco chimney with brick detailing and the name
“Perez” etched into the stucco near the top (Plate 3.3–15). This likely indicates that the builders
did this since they knew it would be purchased by the Perez family, or that the family modified
the stucco or the chimney after they moved into the home in 1969.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–24
The west façade of the residence features an aluminum-framed sliding glass door set
beneath a porch roof. The porch roof is supported by two simple 4x4-inch columns. On either
side of the sliding glass door are aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The southern
portion of the west façade of the building features a door (Plate 3.3–16). A swimming pool is
located directly west of the residence in the backyard.
Although no supporting documentation could be located, it appears as though the southern
portion of the building with the front-facing gable was originally an attached garage with a front-
gabled roof, like the 10864 Oleander Avenue building to the south (Temp-3; APN 255-011-26),
which was later converted into living space. The door on the west façade of the southern portion
features a concrete step similar to those seen in a pedestrian door leading into a garage. The
chimney also appears modified and may have been added when the garage was converted into
living space. Neither the 10840 nor 10864 Oleander Avenue residences to the south (Temp-2
[APN 255-011-27] and Temp-3 [APN 255-011-26], respectively), which exhibit similar floorplans
and designs, feature a chimney. If the 10818 Oleander Avenue residence was indeed designed like
the 10864 Oleander Avenue building with a garage, the arched courtyard wall is also not original
since it would have blocked access to the garage door on the east façade where the picture window
and front door are currently. In addition, if the southern portion of the building was originally an
attached garage, the original front door would have been where secondary door is located, north
of the brick wainscoting on the east façade, like that seen in the 10864 Oleander Avenue residence.
Site Temp-2 (10840 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-27)
The 10840 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was constructed, likely by Raymond
Berry, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style. It exhibits a cross-gable-on-hip roof with a wide
eave overhang with fascia and verge boards covering the eaves. Board and batten siding is present
in the gable ends. The roof is covered in composite shingles and the building is clad in stucco.
The primary (east) façade features a front-gabled portion that extends forward from the rest of the
façade approximately five feet. A decorative concrete block and brick planter is present in front
of the front-gabled portion of the building.
The front door to the residence is located near the center of the primary (east) façade and
consists of a modern wood door with a wood screen door. Four aluminum-framed, horizontal-
sliding windows with snap-on muntins are spaced evenly across the east façade. Each window
features a thick stucco trim. The north and south façades of the building feature no doors or
windows (Plates 3.3–17 and 3.3–18).
The west façade of the residence features a nearly full-length rear porch that covers a
concrete patio. The porch roof is supported by four simple 6x6-inch columns. At the center of the
west façade is an aluminum-framed sliding glass door. On either side of the sliding glass door are
aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The northern portion of the west façade is not
covered by the rear porch and also features a sliding glass door that leads to the same concrete
patio (Plate 3.3–19).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–27
Site Temp-3 (10864 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-26)
The 10864 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was constructed, likely by Jerry
Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style. It exhibits a cut-up roof with gable-on-hip and
front-gabled sections, both with a wide eave overhang with fascia and verge boards covering the
eaves. The roof is covered in composite shingles and the building is clad in stucco with a brick
wainscot at the center of the primary (east) facade. The primary (east) façade features a front-
gabled attached garage that extends forward from the rest of the façade approximately five feet.
The garage door is a solid pull-up-style door and is likely original (Plates 3.3–20 and 3.3–21).
The front door is located near the center of the primary (east) façade and consists of a
modern wood door with an aluminum screen door. Three aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows are spaced across the east façade. The north and south façades of the building feature no
doors or windows (Plates 3.3–22 and 3.3–23).
The west façade of the residence features an aluminum-framed sliding glass door set
beneath a porch roof. The porch roof is supported by two simple 4x4-inch columns. On either
side of the sliding glass door are aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The southern
portion of the west façade features a door leading into the garage (Plate 3.3–24).
Site Temp-4 (10888 Oleander Avenue – APN 255-011-25)
The 10888 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was constructed, likely by Jerry
Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style. It exhibits a cross-gabled, gable-on-hip roof with
a wide eave overhang with fascia and verge boards covering the eaves. The roof is covered in
composite shingles and the building is clad in stucco. The front door is located near the center of
the primary (east) façade and consists of a modern wood door with a steel security door. Three
non-original, vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows are spaced across the east façade (Plate
3.3–25). The primary (east) façade features an attached garage that extends forward from the rest
of the façade approximately five feet. The garage door is a solid pull-up-style door and is likely
original Plate 3.3–26).
The north and south façades of the building feature no doors or windows (Plate 3.3–27).
The west façade features a non-original, vinyl-framed sliding glass door set beneath a porch roof,
which is supported by three simple 4x4-inch posts. On either side of the sliding glass door are
non-original vinyl-framed horizontal sliding windows. The west façade of the southern portion of
the building features a door leading into the garage (Plate 3.3–28).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–33
Site Temp-5 (16140 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-29)
A single-family residence and a relocated prefabricated home are located on APN 255-
011-29. Based upon historic aerial imagery and the County of San Bernardino PIMS, the single-
family residence was constructed in 1954 in the Ranch architectural style and the prefabricated
home was either built or moved onto the property between 1959 and 1966.
The single-family residence exhibits a hipped roof with a moderate eave overhang with
fascia boards covering the eaves. The roof is covered in composite shingles and the building is
clad in stucco. The primary (south) features a partial-width front porch that is an extension of the
main roof. The porch roof is supported by arched stucco supports. The front door is located at the
center of the porch and consists of a modern wood panel door with an oval-shaped lite at the center.
The east and south façades feature non-original, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows
with snap-on muntins (see Plate 3.3–29). The north façade also features non-original, aluminum-
framed windows with snap-on muntins. The window opening for the smaller window on the north
façade was altered at an unknown date and the stucco surrounding the window has been patched.
A half-lite wood panel door with a steel security screen is located on the east side of the north
façade (Plates 3.3–30 and 3.3–31).
The prefabricated home was relocated to the property between 1959 and 1966. It was
originally smaller than it is currently, as pictured on the 1966 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–11),
and the original portion appears to have been constructed prior to 1940. Between 1980 (Plate 3.3–
32) and 2005 (Plate 3.3–33), an addition was constructed onto the north façade of the prefabricated
home. The approximately one-foot-high concrete foundation is poured, raised, and battered.
Currently, the prefabricated home exhibits a rectangular footprint and a cut-up roof with both
hipped and gabled sections with a minimal eave overhang. The hipped section of the roof is located
over the central portion of the building and the gabled sections consist of a front-gabled projection
on the south façade and the 1980 to 2005 addition on the north façade.
The hipped roof and the southern projection are clad in horizontal clapboard siding and
feature single-hung, wood-framed windows. A stoop with a flat roof is located where the southern
projection meets the hipped roof. The stoop roof is supported by a single 4x4-inch post. Beneath
the stoop roof is a modern wood panel door, which serves as the front entry to the building. The
door is accessed via three concrete steps. On the south façade of the southern projection is a
cutaway bay window (Plate 3.3–34). The west façade of the hipped roofed portion features one
replacement window that is smaller than the original opening. The extra space around the smaller
window is filled in with horizontal wood siding (Plate 3.3–35).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–38
The 1980 to 2005 addition features both hipped and gabled roof sections covered in
composite shingles. The addition is clad in horizontal beveled siding and sits on a non-battered
poured concrete foundation. It features aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows (see Plate
3.3–35). The east façade of the addition exhibits a modern wood panel door that is accessed via a
set of poured concrete steps that terminate in a stoop. The door is located beneath a small shed
roof that extends over the concrete stoop (Plate 3.3–36).
Site Temp-6 (16156 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-19)
The 16156 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1954 in an
unknown architectural style with a detached garage. Between 1980 (see Plate 3.3–32) and 2005
(see Plate 3.3–33), a full-length front porch was added, and the original rear porch was enclosed
(Plates 3.3–37 and 3.3–38). Currently, the front porch roof extends forward from the front-gabled
south façade and is supported by four large stucco columns. The manner in which the hipped
porch roof connects to the original gabled roof creates a gable-on-hipped roof appearance. The
building is clad in coarse texture stucco with vertical wood siding in the gable ends. Fenestration
consists of vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows with imitation muntins. All windows feature
a thick stucco trim (Plate 3.3–39).
In the 1959 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–40), the original square footprint, rear porch, and
detached garage can be seen. Between 2005 (see Plate 3.3–33) and 2009 (Plate 3.3–41), an
enclosed breezeway was constructed between the residence and detached garage (Plate 3.3–42).
The breezeway features the same horizontal-sliding windows with stucco trim as the rest of the
building and, as such, it is likely that those elements were added to the residence and breezeway
at the same time.
To the rear of the garage is a wood-framed barn or storage structure clad in wood panels
of various sizes. The structure features a flat roof that is partially collapsed on the north end (Plates
3.3–43 and 3.3–44). Although possibly visible on aerial photographs beginning in 1959, the shape
and size of the structures to the rear of the residence and garage change over time and it is not clear
if the current structure was once part of a larger connected complex. Regardless, the other
structures once associated with the storage or barn structure were removed by 1980.
Site Temp-7 (16172 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-18)
According to the County of San Bernardino PIMS the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building
was constructed in 1944. However, as no structures are present on APN 255-011-18 until after
1966, it was likely built in another location and relocated between 1966 and 1980. This is
substantiated by the Minimal Traditional-style architecture elements seen in the building such as
the hipped roof with no eave overhang and small front porch (Plate 3.3–45).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–45
The 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building is wood-framed and set on a concrete block
foundation with a hipped roof covered in composite shingles. The building is clad in T1-11 wood
paneling and the south façade features two non-original, vinyl-framed, double-hung windows. The
western window on the south façade replaced a slightly larger window and the opening has been
infilled with additional siding. Windows on the west façade include an octagonal port window, a
large potentially original wood-framed picture window, and three small, aluminum-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows. The front porch consists of a raised, poured concrete slab that is three
risers high and covered by a simple shed roof. The roof is supported by two 4x4-inch posts and
an aluminum metal railing painted white is present on either side of the steps.
A small wood stoop covered by a shed roof is present on the west façade of the building
between the picture window and the three small windows. A door leads into the side of the house
from the stoop. The door on the side of the house and the front door are both solid wood with
modern brass hardware.
The east façade of the building features an enclosed porch addition constructed at an
unknown date. The enclosed porch features a shed roof, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows, and vertically oriented T1-11 siding with smaller grooves than those present on the rest
of the building. Although aerial photographs are not clear enough to determine when the enclosed
porch was constructed, based upon the materials used, it was likely added between the 1970s and
1980s (Plates 3.3–46 and 3.3–47).
The north façade of the building features a half-lite wood panel door located beneath a
small, shed-style porch roof. Fenestration consists of one fixed and two aluminum-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows (Plate 3.3–48).
West of the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue residence is a detached garage. The garage is clad
in the same panel siding as the residence and features a hipped roof covered in composite shingles.
The west façade of the detached garage features a lean-to-style addition with a shed roof. The
south façade of the addition features vertically oriented wood panel siding and the west and north
façades feature corrugated metal panels (Plate 3.3–49). The garage originally featured two pull-
up-style garage doors with a section of wall between. Between 2015 and 2018, the doors were
replaced with a single, sectioned automatic opening garage door (Plates 3.3–50 and 3.3–51).
Site Temp-8 (16204 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-14)
The 16204 Santa Ana Avenue property includes the single-family residence constructed in
1949 in an unknown architectural style and a large complex of structures currently used to raise
exotic birds. The first of these structures was built between 1948 and 1959 (see Plate 3.3–40) and
consisted of a large, rectangular building. The original residence was side-gabled; however, the
building is currently cross-gabled and is clad in coarse texture stucco with a partial-width front
porch that has been extensively modified since its initial construction.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–49
Aerial imagery indicates that between 1959 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3–11 and 3.3–40), small
structures were built between the residence and the large rear structure. Up until at least 1966, the
residence featured a simple rectangular footprint, while between 1959 and 1966, the rear structure
was expanded to nearly twice its original size.
By 1980, a large front-gabled addition had been constructed onto the north façade of the
residence connecting it to the small structures between the large rear structure and the residence
(see Plate 3.3–32). Between 1985 and 1994, an addition was constructed onto the east façade of
the residence (Plates 3.3–52 and 3.3–53). The addition is cross-gabled and features a moderate
eave overhang with exposed rafters. It is unknown what type of windows are currently present in
the addition as they are covered with built-in sunscreens and iron security grilles (Plates 3.3–54
and 3.3–55). A chimney is present on the east façade of the addition.
At an unknown date after 1966, an addition was constructed onto the north façade of the
western portion of the building, west of the large front-gabled addition. This addition is not visible
in aerial imagery due to extensive tree coverage; however, the addition was partially built onto the
west façade of the large front-gabled addition and features a shed roof with unenclosed eaves. Like
the addition on the east side of the building, the original south façade of the residence and the
western addition feature windows covered with built-in sunscreens and iron security grilles (Plates
3.3–56 and 3.3–57).
At an unknown date, the large rear structure was removed and replaced with several smaller
structures that are currently used to raise exotic birds (Plate 3.3–58).
Site Temp-9 (16228 Santa Ana Avenue – APN 255-011-13)
The 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in an unknown architectural style
in 1947. When originally constructed, the building featured a gabled roof that ran from north to
south with a small projection located off the northern end of the west façade (see Plate 3.3–40).
Between 1959 and 1966, a detached garage was constructed southwest of the residence (see Plates
3.3–11 and 3.3–40). Between 1966 and 1980, the building was extended to the west with a large
addition and connected to the detached garage (see Plate 3.3–32).
Currently, the residence is cross-gabled with a moderate unenclosed eave overhang and
resembles the Ranch architectural style. The building is clad in stucco with an attached, front-
gabled garage with a modern sectional metal garage door with decorative half-oval windows. The
entire south façade of the residence is part of the 1966 to 1980 addition, which introduced a side-
gabled addition onto the south façade of the original residence and connected the detached garage.
The front door to the residence, which is a modern wood panel door with an etched glass half-lite,
is located on the primary (south) façade just east of the garage. East of the front door are two
vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows of different sizes, both featuring decorative wood
shutters. The now attached garage features one vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding window on the
east façade (Plate 3.3–59).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–55
The east façade of the building features a modern wood-paneled door and a vinyl-framed,
horizontal-sliding window on the side-gabled addition and a larger vinyl-framed, horizontal-
sliding window on the original portion of the building (Plate 3.3–60). The north façade of the
building features two vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows on the front-gabled, original
portion of the building and one in the side-gabled portion that is shown on the 1966 aerial
photograph (see Plate 3.3–11) as the projection on the northern portion of the west façade. The
west façade of the addition features wood, multi-lite French doors with dual side lites. The garage
connects to the west façade of the addition. The garage features no windows or doors on the north
façade and a single, vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding window on the west façade (Plate 3.3–61).
Site Temp-10 (10861 Citrus Avenue – APN 255-011-30)
The 10861 Citrus Avenue building is reported in the County of San Bernardino PIMS as
having been constructed APN 255-011-30 in 1941 with an effective year of 1946; however, no
building is present on the property until after 1959. The first aerial imagery available after 1959
is from 1966 (see Plate 3.3–11), which shows the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence as an “L”-shaped
structure. Between 1985 and 1994, a large addition was constructed off the southeast corner of
the building (see Plates 3.3–52 and 3.3–53). Between 1994 and 2005, a three-car garage was
constructed onto the western portion of the north façade of the original building (see Plates 3.3–
33 and 3.3–53).
The original portion of the building was designed in the Minimal Ranch style and features
a hipped roof with a moderate eave overhang. It is unknown if the front projection of the building
once featured an attached garage, but since the windows on the west façade of the projection are
newer than those on the remainder of the house, it is likely that they replaced an original garage
door. The front door to the residence is located near the center of the west façade and accessed
via a small covered front porch stoop. The porch roof is separate from the main roof and is
supported by a single 4x4-inch post. The stoop is three risers high and made of poured concrete.
North of the front door is a small projection with one window on the south façade and two on the
west façade. South of the front door are two windows. Fenestration throughout the building,
except for where the garage door may have been, are aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows (Plate 3.3–62).
The southeastern addition, constructed between 1985 and 1994, features a wraparound
front porch on the west and south sides. The roof of the porch is an extension of the main, hipped
roof and is supported by simple 4x4-inch posts. The posts extend without break to the porch floor,
which is elevated approximately one foot from ground level. A wrought iron railing is present
between the posts (Plate 3.3–63). Where the southeastern addition connects to the south façade of
the original residence is a full-lite, multi-pane door. A solid wood door with a steel security screen
installed on top is located on the south façade of the addition. Windows in the addition are
aluminum-framed and horizontal-sliding like the majority of the windows in the original building.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–58
Since all windows on the south and west façades match, except for the window on the west façade
of the northwestern projection, it is likely that these windows were all installed between 1985 and
1994 when the southeastern addition was constructed (see Plate 3.3–63).
The north façade of the original building features four double-hung, vinyl-framed windows
and a full-lite door leading into an addition between the residence and the three-car garage addition
(Plate 3.3–64). The garage addition features a flat roof and two separate garage doors. The
southern door covers a two-car bay, and the northern door covers a single bay (Plate 3.3–65).
3.3.3 Significance Evaluations
CEQA guidelines (Section 15064.5) address archaeological and historic resources, noting
that physical changes that would demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those
characteristics that convey the historic significance of the resource and justify its listing on
inventories of historic resources are typically considered significant impacts. Because demolition
of the buildings within the project would require approval from the City of Fontana as part of the
proposed project, CEQA eligibility criteria were used to evaluate the historic buildings. Therefore,
criteria for listing on the CRHR were used to measure the significance of the resources.
Integrity Evaluation
When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical
identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of
construction. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly
relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while
condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances,
integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if a resource
is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then
the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted.
In order to determine whether the buildings are eligible for listing, CRHR eligibility criteria
were used. Furthermore, BFSA based the review upon the recommended criteria listed in the
National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Andrus
and Shrimpton 2002). This review is based upon the evaluation of integrity of the buildings
followed by the assessment of distinctive characteristics:
1. Integrity of Location [refers to] the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity
of location was assessed by reviewing historical records and aerial photographs in order
to determine if the buildings had always existed at their present locations or if they had
been moved, rebuilt, or their footprints significantly altered.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–60
a. Sites Temp-1 to Temp-4, Temp-6, Temp-8, Temp-9, and Temp-10: Historical
research revealed that the 10818 (Temp-1), 10840 (Temp-2), 10864 (Temp-3),
and 10888 Oleander Avenue (Temp-4), 16156 (Temp-6), 16204 (Temp-8), and
16228 Santa Ana Avenue (Temp-9), and 10861 Citrus Avenue (Temp-10)
buildings were constructed in their current locations between 1947 and 1969,
and therefore, retain integrity of location.
b. Sites Temp-5 and Temp-7: The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue property (Temp-5)
includes one residence built in 1954 and one prefabricated home that was
relocated to the property between 1959 and 1966. The 16172 Santa Ana
Avenue residence and detached garage (Temp-7) were constructed in an
unknown location in 1944 and moved to the property between 1966 and 1980.
Therefore, the relocated buildings at Temp-5 and Temp-7 do not retain integrity
of location.
2. Integrity of Design [refers to] the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the buildings and any
architectural features present.
a. Site Temp-1: The 10818 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Raymond Berry, in 1968 in the Ranch architectural style.
Although no documentation could be located to confirm, it appears as though
the southern portion of the building with the front-facing gable was originally
an attached garage with a front-gabled roof, like the 10864 Oleander Avenue
building (Temp-3) to the south, which was later converted into living space.
The door on the west façade of this portion features a concrete step like those
seen in a pedestrian door leading into a garage. The chimney also appears
modified and may have been added when the garage was converted into living
space. Neither the 10840 (Temp-2) nor 10864 Oleander Avenue (Temp-3)
buildings, which exhibit similar floorplans and designs, feature a chimney. If
the 10818 Oleander Avenue building was indeed designed like 10864 Oleander
Avenue with a garage, the arched courtyard wall also cannot be original since
it would have blocked access to the garage door on the east façade where the
picture window and front door are currently. In addition, if the southern portion
of the building was originally an attached garage, the original front door would
have been where secondary front door is located, north of the brick wainscoting
on the east façade, like 10864 Oleander Avenue. As the current residence was
likely constructed in the same manner as 10840 (Temp-2) and 10864 Oleander
Avenue (Temp-3), the courtyard and southern portion of the east façade could
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–61
not have been part of the original design. Therefore, the 10818 Oleander
Avenue building does not retain integrity of design.
b. Site Temp-2: The 10840 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Raymond Berry, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
The only known modifications made to the building since its construction
include the replacement of the front door and construction of the decorative
brick planters on the primary (east) façade. As these modifications did not alter
the original design, the 10840 Oleander Avenue building retains integrity of
design.
c. Site Temp-3: The 10864 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Jerry Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
The only known modification made to the building since its construction is the
replacement of the front door. As this modification did not alter the original
design, the 10864 Oleander Avenue building retains integrity of design.
d. Site Temp-4: The 10888 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Jerry Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include the
replacement of all original doors and windows. Although these modifications
resulted in the loss of original materials, they did not alter the original design.
Therefore, the 10888 Oleander Avenue building retains integrity of design.
e. Site Temp-5: The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in the Ranch architectural style in 1954. Modifications made to the
building since its initial construction include the replacement of all original
doors and windows. Although these modifications resulted in the loss of
original materials, they did not alter the original design. Therefore, the 16140
Santa Ana Avenue residence retains integrity of design.
The prefabricated home was moved to the property between 1959 and 1966.
Modifications made to the building since it was moved to the property include
a 1980 to 2005 addition constructed onto the north façade and the replacement
of the front door and one original window. As the 1980 to 2005 addition altered
the original form, plan, space, and style of the original building, the
prefabricated home does not retain integrity of design.
f. Site Temp-6: The 16156 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in 1954 in an unknown architectural style. Between 1980 and 2005,
a full-length front porch was added to the front of the building and the rear
porch was enclosed. Between 2005 and 2009, an enclosed breezeway was
constructed between the residence and the detached garage. All original
windows were replaced, likely at the same time as the construction of the
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–62
enclosed breezeway. As the 1980 to 2009 modifications altered the original
form, plan, space, and style of the original building, the 16156 Santa Ana
Avenue building does not retain integrity of design.
g. Site Temp-7: The 16172 Santa Ana Avenue Minimal Traditional-style
residence and a detached garage were constructed in another location 1944 and
moved to their current locations between 1966 and 1980.
Modifications made to the residence include replacement of all original
windows except for the wood-framed picture window on the west façade and
construction of an enclosed porch on the east façade. As the enclosed porch
addition modified the original form, plan, space, and style of the building, the
16172 Santa Ana Avenue residence does not retain integrity of design.
An addition was constructed onto the west façade of the detached garage at an
unknown date and the two separate garage doors were replaced between 2015
and 2018 with a single, sectioned, automatic opening garage door. Although
the detached garage was not designed in a specific architectural style, the
addition on the west façade and the alteration of the door arrangement on the
south façade altered the building’s original form, plan, and space, thereby
impacting its original design. As such, the detached garage does not retain
integrity of design.
h. Site Temp-8: The 16204 Santa Ana Avenue property includes a single-family
residence constructed in 1949 and a large complex of structures currently used
to raise exotic birds. Up until at least 1966, the residence featured a simple
rectangular footprint. By 1980, a large front-gabled addition had been
constructed onto the north façade of the residence connecting it to the small
structures between the large rear structure and the residence. Between 1985
and 1994, an addition was constructed onto the east façade. Another addition
with a shed roof was also constructed onto the north façade of the western
portion of the building, west of the large front-gabled addition. Due to the
numerous additions constructed onto the building, the 16204 Santa Ana Avenue
residence no longer retains its original form, plan, space, or style and does not
retain integrity of design.
The first structure constructed to the rear of the residence was built between
1948 and 1959. When first constructed, this structure featured a large
rectangular footprint. Between 1959 and 1966, small structures were built
between the residence and the large rear structure, and the rear structure was
expanded to nearly twice its original size. At an unknown date after 1980, the
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–63
large structure was removed and replaced with several smaller structures. As
the current structures are not historic in age and differ from the original
structure, the rear structures do not retain integrity of design.
i. Site Temp-9: The 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in an
unknown architectural style in 1947. Between 1959 and 1966, a detached
garage was constructed southwest of the residence. Between 1966 and 1980,
the residence was extended to the west with a large addition and connected to
the detached garage, which introduced a side-gabled addition onto the south
façade of the original residence. As the additions altered the original form, plan,
space, and style of the residence, it does not retain integrity of design.
j. Site Temp-10: The 10861 Citrus Avenue building was built between 1959 and
1962 as a Minimal Ranch-style, single-family residence. On the 1966 aerial
photograph, the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence is seen as an “L”-shaped
structure. Between 1985 and 1994, a large addition was constructed off the
southeast corner of the building. Between 1994 and 2005, a three-car garage
was constructed onto the western portion of the north façade of the original
building. At an unknown date, windows on the east façade of the building were
replaced. As the additions to the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence altered the
original form, plan, space, and style of the building, it does not retain integrity
of design.
3. Integrity of Setting [refers to] the physical environment of a historic property. Setting
includes elements such as topographic features, open space, viewshed, landscape,
vegetation, and artificial features (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of setting
was assessed by inspecting the elements of the property, which include topographic
features, open space, views, landscape, vegetation, man-made features, and
relationships between buildings and other features. The historic buildings located
within the boundaries of the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
were constructed between 1944 and 1969. During that time, the surrounding area
consisted of small, rural ranches. Aerial photographs indicate that the surrounding
neighborhood began to change between 2005 and 2009, when Jurupa Hills High School
was constructed north of the project. Between 2010 and 2012, the open agricultural
field northwest of the project was developed as a football field and baseball diamonds.
Between 2014 and 2016, the properties west and southwest were developed with large
warehouses. Between 2016 and 2018, the property south of the project was also
developed with large warehouses. Currently, while the project area contains most of
the residences that were present between 1945 and 1966, it also includes some modern
residences. Outside of the project, the surrounding properties mainly consist of large
logistics centers and the high school and sports fields. Because the area is no longer
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–64
recognizable as a rural farming community and no longer retains the same open space,
viewshed, landscape, vegetation, or general built environment, none of the sites retain
integrity of setting.
4. Integrity of Materials [refers to] the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
materials was assessed by determining the presence or absence of original building
materials, as well as the possible introduction of materials that may have altered the
architectural design of the buildings.
a. Site Temp-1: The 10818 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Raymond Berry, in 1968 in the Ranch architectural style.
Although no documentation could be located to confirm, it appears as though
the southern portion of the building with the front-facing gable was originally
an attached garage with a front-gabled roof, like the 10864 Oleander Avenue
building (Temp-3) to the south, which was later converted into living space.
The door on the west façade of this portion features a concrete step like those
seen in a pedestrian door leading into a garage. The chimney also appears
modified and may have been added when the garage was converted into living
space. Neither the 10840 (Temp-2) nor 10864 Oleander Avenue (Temp-3)
buildings, which exhibit similar floorplans and designs, feature a chimney. If
the 10818 Oleander Avenue building was indeed designed like 10864 Oleander
Avenue with a garage, the arched courtyard wall also cannot be original since
it would have blocked access to the garage door on the east façade where the
picture window and front door are currently. In addition, if the southern portion
of the building was originally an attached garage, the original front door would
have been where secondary front door is located, north of the brick wainscoting
on the east façade, like 10864 Oleander Avenue. As the current residence was
likely constructed in the same manner as 10840 (Temp-2) and 10864 Oleander
Avenue (Temp-3), the courtyard and southern portion of the east façade could
not have been part of the original design. Therefore, the 10818 Oleander
Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials.
b. Site Temp-2: The 10840 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Raymond Berry, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
The only known modifications made to the building since its construction
include the replacement of the front door and construction of the decorative
brick planters on the primary (east) façade. As these modifications did not
remove any character-defining features of the building’s design, the 10840
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–65
Oleander Avenue residence retains integrity of materials.
c. Site Temp-3: The 10864 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Jerry Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
The only known modification made to the building since its construction is the
replacement of the front door. As this modification did not remove any
character-defining features of the building’s design, the 10864 Oleander
Avenue residence retains integrity of materials.
d. Site Temp-4: The 10888 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Jerry Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include the
replacement of all original doors and windows. As these modifications resulted
in the loss of original materials, the 10888 Oleander Avenue building does not
retain integrity of materials.
e. Site Temp-5: The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in the Ranch architectural style in 1954. Modifications made to the
building since its initial construction include the replacement of all original
doors and windows. As these modifications resulted in the loss of original
materials, the 16140 Santa Ana Avenue residence does not retain integrity of
materials.
The prefabricated home was moved to the property between 1959 and 1966.
Modifications made to the building since it was moved to the property include
a 1980 to 2005 addition constructed onto the north façade and the replacement
of the front door and one original window. As the 1980 to 2005 addition
introduced new materials and removed the wall onto which the addition was
constructed, the prefabricated home does not retain integrity of materials.
f. Site Temp-6: The 16156 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in 1954 in an unknown architectural style. Between 1980 and 2005,
a full-length front porch was added to the front of the building and the rear
porch was enclosed. Between 2005 and 2009, an enclosed breezeway was
constructed between the residence and the detached garage. All original
windows were replaced, likely at the same time as the construction of the
enclosed breezeway. As the 1980 to 2009 modifications removed original
materials and introduced new, non-historic materials, the 16156 Santa Ana
Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials.
g. Site Temp-7: The 16172 Santa Ana Avenue Minimal Traditional-style
residence and a detached garage were constructed in another location 1944 and
moved to their current locations between 1966 and 1980.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–66
Modifications made to the residence include replacement of all original
windows except for the wood-framed picture window on the west façade and
construction of an enclosed porch on the east façade. As the replacement of the
windows resulted in the loss of original materials and the enclosed porch
addition introduced new materials, the 16172 Santa Ana Avenue residence does
not retain integrity of materials.
An addition was constructed onto the west façade of the detached garage at an
unknown date and the two separate garage doors were replaced between 2015
and 2018 with a single, sectioned, automatic opening garage door. The addition
on the west façade and the replacement of the original doors removed original
materials and introduced new building materials. As a result, the detached
garage does not retain integrity of materials.
h. Site Temp-8: The 16204 Santa Ana Avenue property includes a single-family
residence constructed in 1949 and a large complex of structures currently used
to raise exotic birds. Up until at least 1967, the residence featured a simple
rectangular footprint. By 1980, a large front-gabled addition had been
constructed onto the north façade of the residence connecting it to the small
structures between the large rear structure and the residence. Between 1985
and 1994, an addition was constructed onto the east façade. Another addition
with a shed roof was also constructed onto the north façade of the western
portion of the building, west of the large front-gabled addition. Due to the
numerous additions constructed onto the building and the new materials that
were thereby introduced, the 16204 Santa Ana Avenue residence does not retain
integrity of materials.
The first structure constructed to the rear of the residence was built between
1948 and 1959. When first constructed, this structure featured a large
rectangular footprint. Between 1959 and 1966, small structures were built
between the residence and the large rear structure, and the rear structure was
expanded to nearly twice its original size. At an unknown date after 1980, the
large structure was removed and replaced with several smaller structures. As
the current structures are not historic in age and differ from the original
structure, the rear structures do not retain integrity of materials.
i. Site Temp-9: The 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building was constructed in an
unknown architectural style in 1947. Between 1959 and 1966, a detached
garage was constructed southwest of the residence. Between 1967 and 1980,
the residence was extended to the west with a large addition and connected to
the detached garage, which introduced a side-gabled addition onto the south
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–67
façade of the original residence. As the additions introduced new building
materials, the 16228 Santa Ana Avenue building does not retain integrity of
materials.
j. Site Temp-10: The 10861 Citrus Avenue building was built between 1959 and
1962 as a Minimal Ranch-style, single-family residence. On the 1966 aerial
photograph, the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence is seen as an “L”-shaped
structure. Between 1985 and 1994, a large addition was constructed off the
southeast corner of the building. Between 1994 and 2005, a three-car garage
was constructed onto the western portion of the north façade of the original
building. At an unknown date, windows on the east façade of the building were
replaced. As the additions to the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence introduced
new materials, it does not retain integrity of materials.
5. Integrity of Workmanship [refers to] the physical evidence of the labor and skill of
a particular culture or people during any given period in history (Andrus and
Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of workmanship was assessed by evaluating the quality of
the architectural features present in the buildings. The original workmanship
demonstrated by the construction of the buildings at sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 appears
to have been average. None of the buildings possess elements or details that make them
representative examples of the labor or skill of a particular culture or people. Therefore,
none of the buildings have ever possessed integrity of workmanship.
6. Integrity of Feeling [refers to] a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic
sense of a particular period of time (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of feeling
was assessed by evaluating whether or not the resources’ features, in combination with
their setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during the period of construction.
As noted previously, the integrity of setting for all buildings within the property has
been lost. In addition, the modifications made to the buildings or their surroundings
since their original construction have negatively impacted their ability to convey their
historic dates of construction. Therefore, none of the buildings retain integrity of
feeling.
7. Integrity of Association [refers to] the direct link between an important historic event
or person and a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
association was assessed by evaluating the resources’ data or information and their
ability to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the Fontana area or
the state of California. Historical research indicates that none of the buildings are
associated with any significant persons or events. None of the individuals who owned
or lived in the buildings were found to be significant and no known important events
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–68
occurred at the property. Therefore, the buildings have never possessed integrity of
association.
Within the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project, Site Temp-7 and the
prefabricated home within Temp-5 retain no original aspects of integrity. Sites Temp-1, Temp-6,
Temp-8, Temp-9, and Temp-10 only retain integrity of location. The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue
residence within Site Temp-5 only retains integrity of design. Site Temp-4 only retains integrity
of location and design. Sites Temp-2 and Temp-3 were determined to retain integrity of location,
design, and materials.
CRHR Evaluation
For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, the resource must be found
significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:
• CRHR Criterion 1:
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
It was discovered through historical research that no significant events could be
associated with the buildings at sites Temp-1 to Temp-10. Because the property could
not be associated with any specific historic event, the buildings are not eligible for
designation under CRHR Criterion 1.
• CRHR Criterion 2:
It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Historical research revealed that the buildings at sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 are not
associated with any persons important in our past. Therefore, the buildings are not
eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 2.
• CRHR Criterion 3:
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses
high artistic values.
o Site Temp-1: The 10818 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Raymond Berry, in 1968 in the Ranch architectural style
during the circa 1935 to 1975 period during which the Ranch style was most
popular:
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–69
The Ranch style originated in southern California in the mid-
1930s, after a few earlier precursors … During the decades of
the 1950s and 1960s it became by far the most popular house
style built throughout the country. Often located in large
subdivisions, post-World War II Ranch-house suburbs form a
dominant part of many American cities – particularly those that
grew in the postwar Sunbelt Boom of the 1950s and 1960s, such
as Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.
(McAlester 2015)
Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015:597),
include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade.
While the 10818 Oleander Avenue residence possesses five of the seven
features listed above, it does not possess a garage that is attached to the main
façade and the picture window is likely not original.
In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also
distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style,
including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross-
Gabled Roof. The 10818 Oleander Avenue residence cannot be classified as
any of these substyles as it has both hipped and gabled roof sections. Based
upon the building’s similarities in design to the 10864 Oleander Avenue
residence (Temp-3), it is likely that the attached garage was converted into
living space and the chimney, partially enclosed porch, and arcaded wall were
added to the front of the building. Although Spanish Revival-style elements
like the arcaded wall are often found in Ranch-style homes, none of these
elements are original to the building and it is unclear when they may have been
added. The level of workmanship exhibited in the modifications is also of lesser
quality than the rest of the home, causing the modifications to stand out and
detract from the original style. Therefore, as the building no longer retains
integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, or feeling, it does not
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–70
embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction. As the building is not considered architecturally significant, was
not constructed using indigenous materials, and is not a valuable example of the
use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, it is not eligible for designation
under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-2: The 10840 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Raymond Berry, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015:597),
include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade.
The 10840 Oleander Avenue residence possesses five of the seven features
listed above. It does not possess a garage that is attached to the main façade or
a large picture window. Although the building retains integrity of location,
design, and materials, it does not retain integrity of setting or feeling and never
possessed integrity of workmanship or association. Due to a low level of
integrity and only possessing five of the seven character-defining features of
the Ranch style, the building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction and therefore does not rise to a
level of significance. As the building is not considered architecturally
significant, was not constructed using indigenous materials, and is not a
valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, it is not
eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-3: The 10864 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Jerry Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015:597),
include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–71
present; asymmetrical façade.
The 10864 Oleander Avenue residence possesses six of the seven features listed
above. It does not possess a large picture window. Although the building
retains integrity of location, design, and materials, it does not retain integrity of
setting or feeling and never possessed integrity of workmanship or association.
Due to a low level of integrity, the building does not embody distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction and therefore
does not rise to a level of significance. As the building is not considered
architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous materials, and
is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship,
it is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-4: The 10888 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was
constructed, likely by Jerry Nugent, in 1969 in the Ranch architectural style.
Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015:597),
include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade.
The 10888 Oleander Avenue residence possesses six of the seven features listed
above. It does not possess a large picture window. Although the building
retains integrity of location and design, it does not retain integrity of setting,
materials, or feeling and never possessed integrity of workmanship or
association. Due to a low level of integrity, the building does not embody
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction
and therefore does not rise to a level of significance. As the building is not
considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous
materials, and is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, it is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-5: The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in the Ranch architectural style in 1954. Identifying features of the
Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015:597), include:
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–72
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597)
The 16140 Santa Ana Avenue residence possesses five of the seven features
listed above. It does not possess a large picture window. Although the building
retains integrity of location and design, it does not retain integrity of setting,
materials, or feeling and never possessed integrity of workmanship or
association. Due to a low level of integrity, the building does not embody
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction
and therefore does not rise to a level of significance. As the building is not
considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous
materials, and is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, it is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
The prefabricated home was moved to the property between 1959 and 1966.
The building was originally constructed as a simple Pyramidal Family home
with a front-facing gable, as can be seen in the Gable-Front-Wing Family style.
The Pyramidal Family style consists of a building with a nearly square plan and
a pyramidal (equilateral hipped) roof. These residences are most common in
southern states, but were also constructed in the northern and midwestern states
between 1905 and 1930. While some examples “were enhanced with Colonial
Revival, Neoclassical, Folk Victorian, Prairie, or Craftsman stylistic detailing
… many remained simple folk forms which lacked such fashionable details”
(McAlester 2015). The Gable-Front-and-Wing Family style often resulted from
adding a front gable at a right angle to the front-gabled, hall-and-parlor or I-
house plans. “A shed-roofed porch was typically placed within the L made by
the two wings” (McAlester 2015). The prefabricated home features the
pyramidal roof with a front-gabled section. It is also enhanced with a bay
window typical in the Folk Victorian style, and a flat-roofed porch is present in
the “L” made by the front-facing gable. As the building features a combination
of different style types, it does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction. In addition, the construction of the
addition to the rear of the building altered the plans associated with the
Pyramidal Family and Gable-Front-and-Wing Family styles. Due to its
relocation and later modifications made to the building, the prefabricated home
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–73
no longer retains any original aspects of integrity and does not rise to a level of
significance. As the building is not considered architecturally significant, was
not constructed using indigenous materials, and is not a valuable example of the
use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, it is not eligible for designation
under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-6: The 16156 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in 1954 in an unknown architectural style. Between 1980 and 2005,
a full-length front porch was constructed, and the rear porch was enclosed.
Between 2005 and 2009, an enclosed breezeway was constructed between the
residence and detached garage. All original windows were replaced, likely at
the same time as the construction of the enclosed breezeway. As the 1980 to
2009 modifications altered the original form, plan, space, and style of the
original building and the original architectural style is unknown, Site Temp-6
is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-7: The Minimal Traditional-style residence and detached garage at
16172 Santa Ana Avenue were constructed in 1944 and moved to their current
locations between 1966 and 1980. According to McAlester (2015):
Minimal Traditional homes can be found throughout the United
States. During the early 1940s, concentrations were rapidly built
where new sites for World War II production plants created an
urgent local need for worker housing. After the war, developers
built instant communities – such as Levittown, New York on
Long Island, and Brentwood in Denver, Colorado – filled with
Minimal Traditional houses, sometimes using only a few
designs in a subdivision. These were sometimes located outside
the city’s built-up edge, where large tracts of land were available
and new broad highways and arterials were planned for easy
automobile access. In postwar subdivisions, the style is found
with early Ranch houses (sometimes called Minimal Ranches or
Ranchettes).
The Minimal Traditional house was “the little house that could.”
It was the small house that could be built with FHA [Federal
Housing Administration]-insured loans in the midst of the Great
Depression between 1935 and 1940; the house that could be built
quickly to accommodate millions of relocating World War II
production-plant workers (1941-1945); and the house that could
be built rapidly during the late 1940s in large post-World War II
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–74
developments (1946-1949).
Identifying features of the Minimal Traditional style include:
Low- or intermediate-pitched roof, more often gabled; small
house, generally one-story in height; roof eaves have little or no
overhang; double-hung windows, typically multi-pane or 1/1;
minimal amounts of added architectural detail; rarely has
dormers. (McAlester 2015)
The 16172 Santa Ana Avenue building originally possessed all of the above
characteristics. The building is one story with a simple, rectangular floorplan,
an intermediate-pitched roof with a minimal eave overhang, and a minimal
amount of added architectural detail. Modifications made to the building since
its construction include replacement of all original windows except for the
wood-framed picture window on the west façade and construction of an
enclosed porch on the east façade. The enclosed porch addition negatively
impacted the building’s integrity of design and materials, and the replacement
of the windows impacted the building’s integrity of materials. In addition, it no
longer retains integrity of location, setting, or feeling and it never possessed
integrity of workmanship or association. As such, although the building
originally featured a majority of the character-defining features of the Minimal
Traditional style, it is not considered a representative example and, due to the
documented modifications and an overall lack of integrity, does not embody
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.
Therefore, as the building is not considered architecturally significant, was not
constructed using indigenous materials, and is not a valuable example of the
use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, it is not eligible for designation
under CRHR Criterion 3.
An addition was constructed onto the west façade of the detached garage at an
unknown date and the two separate garage doors were replaced between 2015
and 2018 with a single, sectioned, automatic opening garage door. Although
the garage was not designed in a specific architectural style, the addition on the
west façade and the alteration of the door arrangement on the south façade
altered the building’s original form, plan, and space, thereby impacting its
original design and materials. In addition, the detached garage is only a
contributor to the residence and would not be individually eligible for
designation. As such, due to the lack of integrity of both the residence and
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–75
garage, the detached garage is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-8: The 16204 Santa Ana Avenue property includes a single-family
residence constructed in 1949 in an unknown style and a large complex of
structures currently used to raise exotic birds. Up until at least 1966, the
residence featured a simple rectangular footprint. By 1980, a large front-gabled
addition had been constructed onto the north façade of the residence, connecting
it to the small structures between it and the large rear structure. Between 1985
and 1994, an addition was constructed onto the east façade. Another addition
with a shed roof was constructed onto the north façade of the western portion
of the building, west of the large front-gabled addition. Due to the numerous
additions constructed onto the building, it is unclear what the original
architectural style was. The modifications made to the 16204 Santa Ana
Avenue residence and surrounding area negatively impacted the building’s
integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling, and the
building is not known to have ever possessed integrity of association. Due to
an overall lack of integrity, it does not embody distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction. Therefore, as the building is
not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous
materials, and is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, it is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
The first of the structures constructed to the rear of the residence was built
between 1948 and 1959. When first constructed, the building featured a large
rectangular footprint. Between 1959 and 1966, small structures were built
between the residence and the large rear structure, and the rear structure was
expanded to nearly twice its original size. At an unknown date after 1980, the
large structure was removed and replaced with several smaller structures. As
the current structures are not historic in age and differ from the original
structure, they are not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-9: The 16228 Santa Ana Avenue single-family residence was
constructed in an unknown architectural style in 1947. Between 1959 and 1966,
a detached garage was constructed southwest of the residence. Between 1966
and 1980, the residence was extended to the west with a large addition and
connected to the detached garage, which introduced a side-gabled addition onto
the south façade of the original residence. As the modifications altered the
original form, plan, space, and style of the original building and the original
architectural style is unknown, Site Temp-9 is not eligible for designation under
CRHR Criterion 3.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–76
o Site Temp-10: The 10861 Citrus Avenue single-family residence was built
between 1959 and 1962 in the Minimal Ranch style. Identifying features of the
Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015:597), include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade.
The 10861 Citrus Avenue residence originally possessed five of the seven
features listed above. It did not originally feature a large picture window or a
broad one-story shape. Later modifications removed the garage and replaced it
with a picture window and added another garage onto the north façade. While
the building then possessed all seven character-defining features, three of them
were not original.
In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also
distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style,
including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross-
Gabled Roof. The 10861 Citrus Avenue residence is best classified as the
Cross-Hipped Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:598) states that “about 40
percent of one-story Ranch houses have a cross-hipped roof. Typically, these
are one-story houses with a long roof ridge running parallel to the front façade
with a single hipped extension. Occasionally a second hipped front extension
is also present.” While the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence does resemble this
form in the way the gables are oriented, the building does not possess the “long
roof ridge running parallel to the front facade” (McAlester 2015).
Because the building does not have a wide eave overhang, it more closely
resembled a Minimal Ranch-style residence when it was constructed.
According to McAlester (2015):
Early, small examples of the Ranch [style] are sometimes called
Ranchette, Minimal Ranch, or Transitional Ranch. These
generally lack the broader overhang of later examples and many
of the elaborations that become common as house size increased.
The line between Minimal Traditional and Ranchette is a matter
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–77
of judgement. However, the intent was likely a Ranch house if
a picture window and other Ranch elaboration is present (such
as a corner window or wall cladding that differs at the base of
the windows). While Ranch houses commonly have a broader
profile than Minimal Traditionals, neighborhoods platted with
narrow lots before World War II may have Ranch-style houses
adapted to these lots …
During the 1940s, it [the Ranch-style home] was only one of the
small house types built under FHA guidelines. As the financial
controls that mandated very small houses were gradually lifted
following World War II, the Ranch style began to gain in
popularity …
The size of a Ranch [home] was quite small in the late 1940s,
but the typical size gradually increased as builders actively
lobbied for higher loan limits and FHA guidelines were revised
upward.
McAlester (2015) also notes that while “hipped-roof and front-gabled [Minimal
Traditional] houses are found, with hipped-roof versions the more widespread
… these variations appear to be less common than other subtypes.” As such,
the 10861 Citrus Avenue building was most representative of a front-gabled,
Transitional Ranch-style residence.
Although built within the 1935 to 1975 period of significance for Ranch-style
buildings, the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence only originally possessed five of
the seven character-defining features associated with the Ranch style and,
therefore, it is not considered a representative example of a type (Ranch
architecture). Further, while Minimal Ranch-style residences, which are
associated with FHA guidelines for small houses, were primarily constructed
prior to or during World War II, the 10861 Citrus Avenue residence was
constructed between 1959 and 1962, after most FHA guidelines for small
houses had been lifted. As such, the building is not representative of a period
(World War II). As the Ranch architectural style was popular across the United
States and the residence was not built using any unique construction techniques,
it is also not representative of a region (southern California) or method of
construction and is not known to have been designed or built by an important
creative individual. The large addition constructed off the southeast corner of
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–78
the building between 1985 and 1994 and the construction of the three-car garage
off the north façade between 1994 and 2005 also negatively impacted the
building’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling.
Modifications to the surrounding area also negatively impacted the building’s
integrity of setting and it never possessed integrity of association. Therefore,
the 10861 Citrus Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 3.
• CRHR Criterion 4:
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The research conducted for this study revealed that because the buildings at sites Temp-
1 to Temp-10 are not associated with any significant persons or events and were not
constructed using unique or innovative methods of construction, they likely cannot
yield any additional information about the history of Fontana or the state of California.
Therefore, none of the buildings are eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 4.
3.4 Discussion/Summary
During the field survey, 10 building sites (Temp-1 to Temp-10) were identified that meet
the age threshold to require historic structure evaluations to determine eligibility for the CRHR.
No other cultural resources were observed during the survey. Sites Temp-1 to Temp-10 have been
evaluated as not historically or architecturally significant under any CEQA criteria due to a lack
of association with any significant persons or events and not being representative examples of any
specific architectural style, period, or region. Because none of the properties are eligible for listing
on the CRHR, no mitigation measures are required for any future alterations or planned demolition
of the buildings.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT
IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Resource Importance
The cultural resources survey of the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue
Project identified 13 historic buildings (Temp-1 to Temp-10) that meet the age threshold to require
historic structure evaluations to determine eligibility to the CRHR. The conclusion of the current
assessment is that the buildings are not CEQA-significant or eligible for listing on the CRHR. The
buildings have been thoroughly recorded and no additional information can be derived from further
analysis.
4.2 Impact Identification
The proposed development of the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue
Project will include the demolition of the 13 historic buildings. However, the removal of these
buildings as part of the development of the property will not constitute an adverse impact because
they have been evaluated as not CEQA-significant and not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The
potential does still exist, however, that historic deposits may be present that are related to the
occupation of this location since the 1940s. To mitigate potential impacts to unrecorded historic
features or deposits, mitigation monitoring is recommended. The mitigation monitoring program
is presented in Section 5.0.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES
AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed development will impact 13 historic buildings; however, as these resources
are evaluated as lacking any further research potential, impacts have been determined to be not
significant. Based upon the evaluation of the buildings as lacking further research potential,
mitigation measures will not be required as a condition of approval for the project; however, a
MMRP is recommended because grading may expose undocumented and potentially significant
historic features or deposits associated with the historic occupation of the property since the 1940s.
Evidence of Native American use of this location prehistorically may also be discovered. Based
upon this potential, monitoring of grading is recommended to prevent the inadvertent destruction
of any potentially important cultural deposits that were not observed or detected during the current
cultural resources study. The monitoring program will include Native American observers only
in the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered.
5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project will disturb 10
nonsignificant historic resources (Temp-1 to Temp-10) that do not require any mitigation
measures. However, to mitigate potential impacts to resources that have not yet been detected, a
MMRP is recommended as a condition of approval. In accordance with direction from the City of
Fontana Planning Division, the following guidance is presented as part of the MMRP condition:
• In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological or Native
American monitor, all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a
qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall assess the
discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the following
activities are initiated:
o If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate consultation between the qualified
archaeologist, the appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the City/project
applicant;
o Include the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural
resources investigations as soon as possible; and
o If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique
archaeological resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2
or a “tribal cultural resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section
21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–2
archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and
subsequent implementation.
The proposed MMRP tasks are detailed below.
During Grading
A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During Grading/Excavation/Trenching
1. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to
archaeological resources.
2. The principal investigator (PI) may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency
during construction requesting a modification to the monitoring program when a
field condition such as modern disturbance post-dating the previous
grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are
encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present.
B. Discovery Notification Process
1. In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or prehistoric, the
archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil-
disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or
grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to
overlay adjacent resources and immediately notify the Native American monitor
and client, as appropriate.
2. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless monitor is the PI) of the
discovery.
C. Determination of Significance
1. The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource. If human remains are
involved, the protocol provided in Section D, below, shall be followed.
a. The PI shall immediately notify the City of Fontana to discuss the significance
determination and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional
mitigation is required.
b. If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data
Recovery Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval from the City of
Fontana to implement that program. In the event that prehistoric deposits are
discovered, the ADRP should also be reviewed by the Native American
consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated before
ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–3
c. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City of
Fontana indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in
the final monitoring report. The letter shall also indicate that that no further
work is required.
D. Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can
be made regarding the provenance of the human remains; and the following procedures
as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and
the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be undertaken:
1. Notification
a. The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI, if the monitor is not qualified as
a PI.
b. The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of the San Bernardino County
Sheriff’s Department after consultation with the City of Fontana, either in
person or via telephone.
2. Isolate discovery site
a. Work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a
determination can be made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation with the PI
concerning the provenance of the remains.
b. The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a
field examination to determine the provenance.
c. If a field examination is not warranted, the sheriff-coroner will determine, with
input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American
origin.
3. If Human Remains ARE determined to be Native American
a. The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, ONLY
the medical examiner can make this call.
b. The NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be
the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information.
c. The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the sheriff-coroner
has completed coordination to begin the consultation process in accordance
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–4
with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the State Health and
Safety Code.
d. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner
or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the
human remains and associated grave goods.
e. Disposition of Native American human remains will be determined between the
MLD and the PI, and, if:
i. The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD; OR
ii. The MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being
notified by the NAHC; OR
iii. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of
the MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC
fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner; THEN
iv. Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a
ground-disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that
additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally
appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains.
Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained
from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards.
Where the parties are unable to agree upon the appropriate treatment
measures, the human remains and grave goods buried with the Native
American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity.
4. If Human Remains are NOT Native American
a. The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and notify them of the historic-era
context of the burial.
b. The sheriff-coroner will determine the appropriate course of action with the PI
and city staff (PRC 5097.98).
c. If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and
conveyed to the City of Fontana. The decision for internment of the human
remains shall be made in consultation with City, the applicant/landowner, and
any known descendant group.
Post-Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report
1. The PI shall submit to the City of Fontana a draft monitoring report (even if
negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–5
the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological
monitoring program (with appropriate graphics).
a. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the
ADRP shall be included in the draft monitoring report.
b. Recording sites with the State of California DPR shall be the responsibility
of the PI, including the recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B)
any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the
archaeological monitoring program.
2. The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report to the City of Fontana for
approval, including any changes or clarifications requested by the City.
B. Handling of Artifacts
1. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are
cleaned and cataloged.
2. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify
function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal
material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as
appropriate.
3. The cost for curation is the responsibility of the property owner.
C. Curation of Artifacts
1. To be determined.
D. Final Monitoring Report(s)
1. The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City of Fontana
and any interested parties.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana
Avenue Project was directed by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological
fieldwork was conducted by archaeologist Clarence Hoff. The report text was prepared by Jennifer
Stropes and Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Emily Soong. Technical editing and
report production were conducted by Elena Goralogia. The SCCIC at CSU Fullerton provided the
archaeological records search information and the NAHC provided the SLF search results.
Archival research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the Fontana Historical Society, the
Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County
Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public Library.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
2002 1930 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2005 South Dakota, U.S., Marriages, 1905-2017 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007a Nevada, U.S., Marriage Index, 1956-2005 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007b California, U.S., Divorce Index, 1966-1984 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007c California, U.S., Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007d U.S., Passport Applications, 1795-1925 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2008 Cook County, Illinois Marriage Index, 1930-1960 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2010a U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2010b 1920 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2010c New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis
Island), 1820-1957 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2010d Cuyahoga County, Ohio, U.S., Marriage Records and Indexes, 1810-1973 (database
online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2011a U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
2011b U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 (database online). Lehi, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2012a 1940 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2012b U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2013 California, U.S., Marriage Index, 1949-1959 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2014a U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2014b California, U.S., Federal Naturalization Records, 1843-1999 (database online). Lehi,
UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2015a Michigan, U.S., Marriage Records, 1867-1952 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2015b Virginia, U.S., Birth Records, 19912-2015, Delayed Birth Records, 1721-1911
(database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2015c Michigan, U.S., Death Records, 1867-1952 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2016 Oklahoma, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1890-1995 (database online). Lehi, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2017a California, County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980 (database online).
Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2017b New York State, Marriage Index, 1881-1967 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2017c California, U.S., Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2019 U.S., World War II Hospital Admission Card Files, 1942-1954 (database online). Lehi,
UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2020 U.S., Index to Public Records, 1994-2019 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
2022a 1950 United States Federal Census (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2022b Jerry LeRoy Nugent Family Tree. Electronic document,
https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/102145922/person/380012514981/
facts, accessed September 28, 2022.
Andrus, Patrick and Rebecca H. Shrimpton
2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin
No. 15. National Register of Historic Places.
Anicic, John Charles, Jr.
1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms
Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society.
Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service.
2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina;
Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California.
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8), California, edited by R.F.
Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland,
California.
Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Chino Champion
1998 Vocational ed teacher Grisafe retiring. 16 April:3. Chino, California.
City of Fontana
2018 About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About
-The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018.
City of San Diego
2007 San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. Submitted to the State of California
Office of Historic Preservation and on file at the City of San Diego, San Diego,
California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Cornford, 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.
Cushing, Lincoln
2013 The roots of Southern California Kaiser Permanente. Electronic document,
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/the-roots-of-southern-
california-kaiser-permanente, accessed April 18, 2022.
Daily Plainsman
1957 Service Rollcall. 27 June:13. Huron, South Dakota.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San
Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Freeport Journal-Standard
1943 Applications For Marriage Licenses. 26 February:4. Freeport, Illinois.
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.
Graves, Steven M.
2010 Geography 417, California for Educators: World War II and the late 20th Century.
Electronic document, https://www.csun.edu/~sg4002/courses/417/417_lectures/
417_post_war.htm, accessed April 18, 2022.
Gunther, Jane D.
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside,
California.
Hall, William Hammond
1888 The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties: The Second Part of the Report of the State
Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation Question. State Office, J.D.
Young, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–6
Harris, Marvin
1991 Cultural Anthropology. HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, New York
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.
Kiddle Encyclopedia
2022 Auto Club Speedway facts for kids. Electronic document,
https://kids.kiddle.co/Auto_Club_Speedway, accessed April 18, 2022.
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.
Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta
2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the
Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM
Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Lima Citizen
1959 Divorces Granted. 29 September:4. Lima, Ohio.
1962 Court, Fire Log. 10 August:2. Lima, Ohio.
Lima News
1953 Betty K. Blue Engaged to Arthur Truex. 8 February:27. Lima, Ohio.
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–7
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1–A19. Infotec Research,
Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and
Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
McKenna, Jeanette A.
2002 A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Fontana Unified School District Jurupa
Hills Middle School Site in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA.
McKenna et al. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California
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, M. and F.K. Miller
2003 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, California,
Version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside,
California.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–8
1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
Press-Enterprise
2010 Leroy Perez, Jr. Obituary. 28 October. Riverside, California.
Progress Bulletin
1971 Births, San Antonio Community Hospital: Franklin. 5 October:10. Pomona,
California.
Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San
Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM
Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego
Museum of Man.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
San Bernardino County Sun
1952a Bourns Laboratories Employment Advertisement. 14 December:53. San Bernardino,
California.
1952b Vital Records: Weirich. 11 December:43. San Bernardino, California.
1955a Esther Meszaros Obituary. 23 March:25. San Bernardino, California.
1955b Vital Records: Died, Meszaros. 23 March:27. San Bernardino, California.
1956 South Fontana Land Sold for $94,000. 11 November:31. San Bernardino, California.
1959 Jesse Weirich Obituary. 7 March:29. San Bernardino, California.
1960 Fayne W. Jenkins Obituary. 13 July:16. San Bernardino, California.
1962a Poultry, Eggs, Rabbits & Equipment Advertisement. 4 March:51. San Bernardino,
California.
1962b Chicken Ranch Help Wanted Advertisement. 20 May:50. San Bernardino, California.
1963 Ranches For Sale. 18 May:39. San Bernardino, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–9
1964a Rialto Parcel Sold To Covina Group. 20 September:29. San Bernardino, California.
1965b Planners eye Commercial Zone Request. 25 October:18. San Bernardino, California.
1965a Fontana Planners Decide Off-Street Parking Rules. 24 August:22. San Bernardino,
California.
1965b Family Group. 27 December:2. San Bernardino, California.
1966 Fontana Permit Valuation Up. 22 March:20. San Bernardino, California.
1967a Mina L. Todd Obituary. 28 January:25. San Bernardino, California.
1967b Ranches For Sale. 9 July:62. San Bernardino, California.
1967c Poultry Ranch Help Wanted Advertisement. 2 August:35. San Bernardino, California.
1968 Engagements: Roberts-Gage. 7 January:34. San Bernardino, California.
1973 Help! Please help! – My daddy’s dead! 9 August:1. San Bernardino, California.
1974 Mobile home park standards to be topic. 8 September:149. San Bernardino, California.
1975 Hearings set Monday on conditional permits. 21 March:53. San Bernardino,
California.
1976 Births at San Bernardino Community Hospital: Perez. 11 December:41. San
Bernardino, California.
1977 Fictitious Business Name Statement File No. FBN 19465. 6 April:44. San Bernardino,
California.
1979 Vacant homes vandalized. 10 January:20. San Bernardino, California.
1982 Births: Perez. 2 February:45. San Bernardino, California.
1983 military: Mervine. 1 March:25. San Bernardino, California.
1985a Military: Mervine. 4 January:11. San Bernardino, California.
1985b Jury convicts Fontana man of tavern slaying. 26 January:20. San Bernardino,
California.
1988 New Businesses. 31 October:33. San Bernardino, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–10
1990 Fictitious Business Names. 19 March:36. San Bernardino, California.
1991 La Tijera Styling and Barber Salon. 25 August:28. San Bernardino, California.
1994 Open House: 7736-Fontana. 29 July:33. San Bernardino, California.
1996 Robert William Robley, Fontana resident, Obituary. 13 March:12. San Bernardino,
California.
1998 Masseurs gain protections. 18 February:11. San Bernardino, California.
Santa Maria Daily Times
1942a Here From Navy. 3 August:3. Santa Maria, California.
1942b Father of Three Makes Good at First Navy Task. 11 July5. Santa Maria, California.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Stropes, Tracy A., J.R.K. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith
2019 A Cultural Resources Assessment for the 8801 East Marginal Way Project, City of
Tukwila, King County, Washington. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished
report on file at the City of Tukwila, Tukwila, Washington.
The Dispatch
1991 Obituaries: Edward Zinger. 3 March:28. Los Angeles, California.
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701–710.
Wallis, Eileen V.
2018 World War II in California’s Inland Empire. Electronic document,
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/world-war-ii-in-californias-inland-empire/kaiser-steel,
accessed April 18, 2022.
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–11
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.
Whittall, Austin
2020 The History of Route 66. Electronic document, https://www.theroute-
66.com/history.html, accessed April 18, 2022.
Wirths, Todd A.
2022 Paleontological Assessment for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Project,
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. 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 Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Site Record Forms
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Brian F. Smith, MA
Owner, Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982
Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975
Professional Memberships
Society for California Archaeology
Experience
Principal Investigator 1977–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and
Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California,
Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology
from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports
prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies,
including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr.
Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments
(CalTrans).
Professional Accomplishments
These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added
significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in
the southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been
principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted.
Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San
Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape
Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark
Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the
Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra
Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street
Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707
10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007),
Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007),
Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue
(2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003),
Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001).
1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the
Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla
area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk
faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014).
San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the
San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey
documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018).
Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an
important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by
BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area.
Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program
in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data
recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the
preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented
important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area
(2017).
The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon
resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric
and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property
since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area
encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating
that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015).
Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of
San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and
over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an
occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017).
Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area
of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the
1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of
metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and
the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological
program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007).
4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of
the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million
artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the
largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data
that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and
regional prehistoric settlement patterns.
Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of
man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego.
Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego
Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and
Dr. James R. Moriarty.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town
State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed
in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992),
Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at
the Old San Diego Inn (1988).
Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar
area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of
religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of
major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site
over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with
nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study.
City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of
pipeline in the city and county of San Diego.
Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce
a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information
was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city
showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort
also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City
policy.
Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of
Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the
Planning Department of the City.
The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped
agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the
city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy
Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres
and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews;
evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of
cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report.
February- September 2002.
Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13
Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres
and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of
field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co-
authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County:
Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed
video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project
coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of
potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report. January, February, and July 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA,
Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric
and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4
for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of
cultural resources project report. January-March 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside
County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic
sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American
consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines;
cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch,
Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five
historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature
recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA
guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000.
Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for
the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews;
development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections
cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April
2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project
manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination;
assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project
report. April 2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California:
Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project
coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural
resources project report. April 2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California:
Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project
coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural
resources project report. March-April 2000.
Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina
Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included
direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of
artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project
report in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa,
California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines;
authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California:
Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP
eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation;
meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report. December 1999-January 2000.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5
Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San
Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and
botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of
artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000.
Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of
Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development
of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of
site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project
report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000.
Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor—
included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel.
September 1999.
Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center,
California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based
on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis;
authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment
Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews;
development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on
CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis;
authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999.
Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project,
Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of
sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and
curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula
Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and
curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of
cultural resources project report. July 1999.
Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple
Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project
manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple
field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental
Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report.
August 1997- January 2000.
Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project
archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric
and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including
prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural
resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 484-0915 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: jenni@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Science, Cultural Resource Management Archaeology 2016
St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology 2004
University of California, Santa Cruz
Specialized Education/Training
Archaeological Field School 2014
Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project
Research Interests
California Coastal / Inland Archaeology Zooarchaeology
Historic Structure Significance Eligibility Historical Archaeology
Human Behavioral Ecology Taphonomic Studies
Experience
Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
November 2006–Present
Writing, editing, and producing cultural resource reports for both California Environmental Quality Act and
National Environmental Policy Act compliance; recording and evaluating historic resources, including
historic structure significance eligibility evaluations, Historical Resource Research Reports, Historical
Resource Technical Reports, and Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering
Record preparation; faunal, prehistoric, and historic laboratory analysis; construction monitoring
management; coordinating field surveys and excavations; and laboratory management.
UC Santa Cruz Monterey Bay Archaeology Archives Supervisor
Santa Cruz, California
December 2003–March 2004
Supervising intern for archaeological collections housed at UC Santa Cruz. Supervised undergraduate
interns and maintained curated archaeological materials recovered from the greater Monterey Bay region.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 2
Faunal Analyst, Research Assistant
University of California, Santa Cruz
June 2003–December 2003
Intern assisting in laboratory analysis and cataloging for faunal remains collected from CA-MNT-234.
Analysis included detailed zoological identification and taphonomic analysis of prehistoric marine and
terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish inhabiting the greater Monterey Bay region.
Archaeological Technician, Office Manager
Archaeological Resource Management
January 2000-December 2001
Conducted construction monitoring, field survey, excavation, report editing, report production, monitoring
coordination and office management.
Certifications
City of San Diego Certified Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor
40-Hour Hazardous Waste/Emergency Response OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (e)
Scholarly Works
Big Game, Small Game: A Comprehensive Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered from CA-SDI-11,521,
2016, Master’s thesis on file at St. Cloud University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Technical Reports
Kraft, Jennifer R.
2012 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Pottery Court Project (TPM 36193) City of Lake
Elsinore. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California Eastern
Information Center.
Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith
2016 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1492 K Street Project City of San
Diego. Prepared for Trestle Development, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2016 Focused Historic Structure Assessment for the Fredericka Manor Retirement Community City of
Chula Vista, San Diego County, California APN 566-240-27. Prepared for Front Porch
Communities and Services – Fredericka Manor, LLC. Report on file at the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department.
2016 Historic Structure Assessment for 8585 La Mesa Boulevard City of La Mesa, San Diego County,
California. APN 494-300-11. Prepared for Silvergate Development. Report on file at the City of
La Mesa Planning Department.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 3
2016 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane Project City of San Diego Project
No. 471873 APN 344-030-20. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Beacon Apartments Project City of San Diego Civic San
Diego Development Permit #2016-19 APN 534-210-12. Prepared for Wakeland Housing &
Development Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the State/Columbia/Ash/A Block Project San Diego,
California. Prepared for Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2015 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 687B Project, City of San
Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2015 Cultural Resource Testing Results for the Broadway and Pacific Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for BOSA Development California, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2015 Historic Structure Assessment for the StorQuest Project, City of La Mesa, (APN 494-101-14-00).
Prepared for Real Estate Development and Entitlement. Report on file at the City of La Mesa.
2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1905 Spindrift Remodel Project, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Brian Malk and Nancy Heitel. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Cisterra Sempra Office Tower Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for SDG-Left Field, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2015 Results of a Cultural Resources Testing Program for the 15th and Island Project City of San Diego.
Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Cesar Chavez Community College Project. Prepared
for San Diego Community College District. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Grantville Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Cass Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pacific Beach Row Homes Project, San Diego,
California. Prepared for Armstrong Builders, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 761 Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 770 Project (Part of Group
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 4
3014), City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 11950 El Hermano Road, Riverside County. Prepared for Forestar
Toscana, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 161 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, California (Project No.
342196; APN 666-030-09). Prepared for Blue Key Realty. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2014 Historic Structure Assessment for 8055 La Mesa Boulevard, City of La Mesa (APN 470-582-11-00).
Prepared for Lee Machado. Report on file at the City of La Mesa.
2014 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Watson Land Company. Report on file at the San
Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Celadon (9th and Broadway) Project. Prepared for BRIDGE
Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Comm 22 Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for BRIDGE
Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Pinnacle 15th & Island Project, City of San Diego. Prepared
for Pinnacle International Development, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2014 Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Altman Residence Project, 9696 La Jolla Farms Road, La
Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Steve Altman. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase III Project, City of San
Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation General Engineering Contractors. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase IIIA Project, City of San
Diego. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the F Street Emergency Water Main Replacement Project,
City of San Diego. Prepared for Orion Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Old Town Community Church Project, 2444 Congress
Street, San Diego, California 92110. Prepared for Soltek Pacific, Inc. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment, 2603 Dove Street, San Diego, California (APN) 452-674-32).
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 5
Prepared for Barzal and Scotti Real Estate Corporation. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment at the Western Christian School, 3105 Padua Avenue, Claremont,
California 91711 (APN 8671-005-053). Prepared for Western Christian School. Report on file at
the City of Claremont.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 7th and F Street Parking Project, City of San Diego. Prepared
for DZI Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1919 Spindrift Drive Project. Prepared for V.J. and Uma
Joshi. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Smith, Brian F. and Jennifer R. Kraft
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2314 Rue Adriane Building, San Diego, California Project
No. 460562. Prepared for the Brown Studio. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development
Services Department.
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4921 Voltaire Street Building, San Diego, California
Project No. 471161. Prepared for Sean Gogarty. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 5147 Hilltop Drive Building, San Diego, California
Project No. 451707. Prepared for JORGA Home Design. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the Midway Drive Postal Service Processing and Distribution
Center 2535 Midway Drive San Diego, California 92138 Project No. 507152. Prepared for Steelwave,
LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department.
2016 Historic Resource Technical Report for 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane La Jolla, California Project No.
471873. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2015 Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Urban Discovery Academy Project.
Prepared for Davis Reed Construction, Inc. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development
Services Department.
2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 520 West Ash Street Project, City of
San Diego. Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1919 Pacific Highway Project City of
San Diego City Preliminary Review PTS #451689 Grading and Shoring PTS #465292. Prepared for
Wood Partners. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department.
2015 Historical Resource Research Report for 16929 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California.
Prepared for Rancho Bernardo LHP, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development
Services Department.
2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2002-2004 El Cajon Boulevard Building, San Diego,
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 6
California 92014. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4319-4321 Florida Street Building, San Diego, California
92104. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2015 Historic Resource Technical Report for 726 Jersey Court San Diego, California Project No. 455127.
Prepared for Chad Irwin. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2015 Islenair Historic Sidewalk Stamp Program for Sewer and Water Group 3014, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Historical Resource Research Report for 2850 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, California (Project No.
392445). Prepared for Zephyr Partners – RE, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
Smith, Brian F., Tracy A. Stropes, Tracy M. Buday, and Jennifer R. Kraft
2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1900 Spindrift Drive – Cabana and Landscape
Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1912 Spindrift Drive – Landscape
Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
Stropes, J.R.K. and Brian F. Smith
2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4143 Park Boulevard Building, San Diego, California
92103. Prepared for Bernardini Investments, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 6375 Avenida Cresta Building, San Diego, California
92037. Prepared for Jeffrey and Anne Blackburn. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2019 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 915 Grape Street Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for
Bayview SD, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department.
2019 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Grove Residences Project, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego
County, California. Prepared for Beach City Builders, Inc. Report on file at the County of San Diego.
2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report for the 169 and 171 Fifth Avenue Buildings, City of Chula Vista,
San Diego County, California. Prepared for Turner Impact Capital. Report on file at the City of
Chula Vista.
2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 1409 South El Camino Real Building, San Clemente, California.
Prepared for Shoreline Dental Studio. Report on file at the City of San Clemente.
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 212 West Hawthorn Street Building, San Diego,
California 92101. Prepared for Jacob Schwartz. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 7
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 1142-1142 ½ Prospect Street Building, San Diego,
California 92037. Prepared for LLJ Ventures. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3000-3016 University Avenue/3901-3915 30th Street
Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for Cirque Hospitality. Report on file at the City
of San Diego.
2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 125 Mozart Avenue Building, Cardiff, California. Prepared for
Brett Farrow. Report on file at the City of Encinitas.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Santa Ana Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at the California
South Central Coastal Information Center.
2019 Historical Resource Technical Report for 817-821 Coast Boulevard South, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Design Line Interiors. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3829 Texas Street Building, San Diego, California 92014.
Prepared for Blue Centurion Homes. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2018 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3925-3927 Illinois Street Building, San Diego, California
92104. Prepared for Park Pacifica, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
Contributing Author /Analyst
2015 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Site SDI-10,237 Locus F, Everly Subdivision Project, El Cajon, California by Tracy A.
Stropes and Brian F. Smith. Prepared for Shea Homes. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2011 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for A Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-4606
Locus B for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes.
Prepared for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for An Archaeological Study for the 1912 Spindrift Drive Project,
La Jolla, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for Island Architects. Report
on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Results of a Cultural Mitigation and Monitoring Program for
Robertson Ranch: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Camps near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by Brian F.
Smith. Prepared for McMillan Land Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2009 Faunal Identification for “An Earlier Extirpation of Fur Seals in the Monterey Bay Region: Recent
Findings and Social Implications” by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez and Charlotte K. Sunseri. Proceedings
of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 21, 2009
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX E
Historic Maps