HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D1 - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE
FONTANA CORPORATE CENTER PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0238-062-36 and -39
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
November 23, 2021
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Andrew J. Garrison and Brian F. Smith
Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 679-8218
Client/Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
Report Date: November 23, 2021
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center
Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
(APNs 0238-062-36 and -39)
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Structure
Evaluation
New Sites: Temp-1 (13592 Slover Avenue)
USGS Quadrangle: Guasti, California (7.5 minute)
Acreage: 18.53 acres
Key Words: Survey; three historic buildings and one historic railroad spur at
13592 Slover Avenue recorded as Temp-1; Kaiser Steel Corp.;
monitoring of grading is recommended; historic structures not
significant and preservation is not recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ........................................................................ vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1.0–1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................ 1.0–5
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ....................................... 1.0–15
1.4 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................... 1.0–17
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................... 1.0–17
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................ 2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ................................................................... 3.0–1
3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................ 3.0–1
3.1.1 Survey Methods ....................................................................................... 3.0–1
3.1.2 Archival Research ................................................................................... 3.0–1
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment ................................................................ 3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey .............................................................................. 3.0–2
3.3 Results of Archival Research and Historic Structure Analysis ....................... 3.0–7
3.3.1 History of the Project Area ..................................................................... 3.0–7
3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resources ........................................................ 3.0–17
3.3.3 Significance Evaluation .......................................................................... 3.0–36
3.4 Discussion/Summary ....................................................................................... 3.0–46
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 Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Site Record Form*
Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
Appendix E – Historic Documents
* Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map .................................................................................. 1.0–2
Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ..................................................................... 1.0–3
Figure 1.1–3 Project Development Map ............................................................................ 1.0–4
Figure 3.2–1 Historic Resource Location Map .................................................................. 3.0–6
Figure 3.3–1 Historic Structures Shown on Aerial Imagery .............................................. 3.0–8
Figure 3.3–2 1897 USGS Map ........................................................................................... 3.0–9
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project from the north boundary, facing southeast .............. 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 center of the project, facing west ......................................... 3.0–4
Plate 3.2–4 View of the manufacturing plant (Structure 1), facing northwest .................. 3.0–4
Plate 3.2–5 Overview of the workshop building (Structure 2), facing northeast .............. 3.0–5
Plate 3.2–6 Overview of the front office building (Structure 3), facing north .................. 3.0–5
Plate 3.3–1 Daniel Jerrett ................................................................................................... 3.0–7
Plate 3.3–2 1938 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................. 3.0–10
Plate 3.3–3 1956 Graver Tank and Manufacturing Co., Inc. Advertisement .................... 3.0–12
Plate 3.3–4 1957 Graver Tank and Manufacturing Co., Inc. Advertisement .................... 3.0–13
Plate 3.3–5 1953 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................. 3.0–15
Plate 3.3–6 1959 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................. 3.0–16
Plate 3.3–7 Kaiser Steel Mill circa 1949 ........................................................................... 3.0–14
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–8 1968 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–18
Plate 3.3–9 1977 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–19
Plate 3.3–10 1985 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–20
Plate 3.3–11 1994 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–21
Plate 3.3–12 2003 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–22
Plate 3.3–13 2018 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–23
Plate 3.3–14 View of the Railroad Tracks Leading into the West Façade of Structure 1,
Facing Southeast .......................................................................................... 3.0–24
Plate 3.3–15 View of the Railroad Tracks Which Are No Longer In Use, Facing North . 3.0–25
Plate 3.3–16 View of the Pedestrian Entrance Circa 1977 to 1985 Located on the South
Façade of Structure 1, Facing North ............................................................. 3.0–26
Plate 3.3–17 View of the North (Forward) and West (Right) Façades of Structure 1,
Facing Southeast ........................................................................................... 3.0–27
Plate 3.3–18 View of the East Façade of Structure 1, Facing Northwest .......................... 3.0–28
Plate 3.3–19 View of the South Façade of Structure 1, Facing Northeast ......................... 3.0–29
Plate 3.3–20 View of the West Façade of Structure 1, Facing East .................................. 3.0–30
Plate 3.3–21 View of the West (Left) and South (Forward) Façades of Structure 2,
Facing Northeast ........................................................................................... 3.0–31
Plate 3.3–22 View of the North (Left) and West (Right) Façades of the Structure 2,
Showing the Infilled Windows, Facing Southeast ........................................ 3.0–32
Plate 3.3–23 View of the Large Sliding Doors Located on the North Façade of
Structure 2, Facing Southwest ...................................................................... 3.0–33
Plate 3.3–24 View of the Post-1994 Lean-To Structure Located on the South Façade of
Structure 2, Facing North .............................................................................. 3.0–34
Plate 3.3–25 View of the West Façade of Structure 6 (Front), Located Directly West of
Structure 1 (Behind), Facing East ................................................................. 3.0–35
Plate 3.3–26 View of the Prefabricated Structures (Right) Connected to the North
Façade of Structure 3 (left), Facing Southwest ............................................. 3.0–37
Plate 3.3–27 View of the East Façade of Structure 3 (Left), Showing the Flat Roof and
Parapet, Facing West .................................................................................... 3.0–38
Plate 3.3–28 View of the Front Entrance of Structure 3, Located on the South Façade,
Facing North ................................................................................................. 3.0–39
Plate 3.3–29 View of the South Façade of Structure 3, Showing the Landscaping and
Sidewalks, Facing Northeast ......................................................................... 3.0–40
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.3–1 Cultural Resources Located Within a One-Mile Radius of the Fontana
Corporate Center Project ................................................................................ 1.0–15
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request by T&B Planning, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA)
conducted a cultural resources study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project. The project is
located on the 7.5-minute USGS Guasti, California topographic quadrangle in Section 21,
Township 1 South, Range 6 West. The subject property consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 0238-062-36 and -39 and includes 13592 Slover Avenue in the city of Fontana, California.
This property is bounded on all sides by a combination of heavy and light industrial uses in an area
experiencing mainly light industrial (warehouse) redevelopment. The project proposes to
redevelop the 18.53-acre property for the construction of an industrial warehouse along with
associated parking and hardscape.
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). A records search was requested 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. A review of the SCCIC data indicates that no previously
recorded resources are located within the subject property. BFSA also requested a review of the
Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The cultural resources survey was conducted on July 22, 2021 and resulted in the
documentation of one unrecorded historic property within the project, which has been recorded as
Site Temp-1. Based upon the results of the field survey and records searches, from the perspective
of the CEQA review of the proposed development, Site Temp-1 has been evaluated as not eligible
for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). While the buildings are
historic in age and associated with Kaiser Steel Corporation, they do not retain a sufficient level
of integrity, none of them are designed by an architect of importance, nor do they possess any
architecturally important elements. Based upon the conclusions reached during the evaluation, no
mitigation measures or preservation are recommended for the historic buildings. As such, no
impacts to significant resources are associated with the proposed development of the property.
Although the historic properties were evaluated as not CRHR-eligible, the potential exists
that unidentified historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this location
since the mid-twentieth century. Because of this potential to encounter buried cultural deposits,
monitoring of grading by qualified archaeologists is recommended. In light of the fact that no
prehistoric resources have been recorded within one mile of the property, Native American
monitoring is not recommended 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vii
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 Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the Fontana Corporate Center Project was
conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The
project is located northwest of Slover and Mulberry avenues at 13592 Slover Avenue, within the
city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The property, which includes
APNs 0238-062-36 and -39, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Guasti, California topographic
quadrangle in Section 21, Township 1 South, Range 6 West (Figure 1.1–2). As currently designed,
the project proposes the redevelopment of 18.53 acres for the construction of an industrial
warehouse building with associated tractor-trailer loading docks, parking, and infrastructure
(Figure 1.1–3).
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 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. Currently, the subject property is fully developed and highly disturbed. The
subject property contains the offices, manufacturing plant, and distribution center for Clark Pacific
who prefabricate building façades at the location. Three of the structures currently utilized within
the subject property were constructed in 1953 for Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company and
later owned by Kaiser Steel. As such, these structures are old enough to be considered for inclusion
within the CRHR.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The Fontana Corporate Center Project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino
County in the city of Fontana. The subject property is part of the Chino Basin, south of the San
Gabriel Mountains, north of the Jurupa Mountains, and west of the San Bernardino Mountains.
The San Gabriel Mountains extend east from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to the Cajon
Pass in San Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges with peaks
exceeding 9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project is situated on an alluvial fan at
the western margin and southern end of Lytle Creek.
The general project area is characterized by relatively flat land (with elevations averaging
980 feet AMSL) that was previously used as farmland. The property has been impacted by
development of commercial and industrial enterprises over several decades. Based on property
research and aerial imagery, the eastern half of the project was developed in 1953 while the western
half, which originally contained a southwest trending drainage, has remained relatively
undeveloped.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
Geologically, the project is underlain by late Holocene-aged (approximately within the last
few thousand years) young alluvial fan deposits (Wirths 2021). These deposits are likely underlain
by an older deposit of young alluvial fan sediments that are early Holocene and late Pleistocene in
age (approximately 6,000 to 120,000 years ago) (Wirths 2021). The specific soil type found within
the project are mapped as Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC) and Tujunga
loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) (SoilWeb 2021).
1.3 Cultural Setting
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
(Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer,
which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and
evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984;
Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the
particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west
than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains,
marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds,
mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss
and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP)
The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP.
The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general
warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In
southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by
cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at
8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one
to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the
coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines
were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely
discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and
estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea
levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).
At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons
filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters
1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes
surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the
lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects on the types of resources available to
prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten,
but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).
The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water,
and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland
to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants,
including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures,
complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling
Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.
Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790)
Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region
moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This
period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political,
and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
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
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
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
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).
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina
Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual
objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since
it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death,
supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
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).
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
Historic Period
The historic background of the project began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). In the late eighteenth
century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San
Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions “began colonizing the land [southern California] and
gradually … [expanded their use of] the interior valley in what is now western Riverside County
for raising grain and cattle” to support the missions (County of Riverside 2020). “The San Gabriel
mission claimed lands in what is now Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass,
while the San Luis Rey mission claimed land in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and
Murrieta” (Lech 2004). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by
missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1964). Throughout this period,
the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet
resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social
order (Cook 1976).
In the mid- to late 1770s, “Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain charged with discovering
an overland route from the Mexican state of Sonora to San Gabriel and Los Angeles, passed
through much of [what is now] Riverside County” and described fertile valleys, lakes, and sub-
desert areas” (Lech 2004). Spanish missionaries formed Mission San Gabriel in the San
Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century. The mission established Rancho San
Bernardino in 1819, which included the present-day areas of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto,
Redlands, and Colton (City of San Bernardino 2015). Since there was no reliable water source in
the area, from 1819 to 1820, the missionaries developed a zanja through the use of Native
American labor from the Guachama Rancheria (Smallwood 2006). The creation of the zanja was
implemented to divert waters from Mill Creek all the way through the city of Redlands, ending
near the mission to assist with agricultural enterprises. The new water source allowed nearby
ranching districts to develop during the nineteenth century (City of Redlands 2010; Smallwood
2006).
Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying
the end of the Mission Period (Brigandi 1998; Lech 2004). By this time, the missions owned some
of the best and most fertile land in southern California. In order for California to develop, the land
would have to be made productive enough to turn a profit (Brigandi 1998). The new government
began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected Mexican
citizens. “The ‘grants’ were called ranchos, and many of the ranchos in Riverside County have
lent their names to modern-day locales – Jurupa, San Jacinto, San Gorgonio, Temecula, and La
Laguna (Lake Elsinore)” (Lech 2004).
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from the San Luis Rey Mission petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native
Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources,
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook
1976).
In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. “In 1848, with the signing of
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,” the region was annexed as “a territory of the United States, and
in 1850 California became a state. This event generated a steady flow of settlers into the area,
including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health-seekers, speculators, politicians, adventurers, seekers
of religious freedom, and individuals who envisioned utopian colonies (County of Riverside 2020).
In 1851, 500 Mormons moved to the Redlands/San Bernardino area and purchased Rancho
San Bernardino from the Lugo family (City of Redlands 2010). The settlement that the Mormons
created within the rancho was short-lived, however, as in 1857, Brigham Young recalled all
Mormons in San Bernardino back to Utah. Approximately 1,400 Mormons returned to Utah, while
the remaining 45 percent stayed in San Bernardino, choosing “to forsake the church rather than
leave their homes” (Lyman 1989).
“However, by the late 1880’s and early 1890’s, there was growing discontent between
Riverside and San Bernardino, its neighbor 10 miles to the north,” due to differences in opinion
concerning religion, morality, the Civil War, politics, and fierce competition to attract settlers
(Lech 2004). “After a series of instances in which charges were claimed about unfair use of tax
monies to the benefit of the City of San Bernardino only, several people from Riverside decided
to investigate the possibility of a new county” (Lech 2004). “In May 1893, voters living within an
area carved from San Bernardino County [to the north] and San Diego County [to the south]
approved the formation of Riverside County” (County of Riverside 2020). Early business
opportunities “were linked to agriculture but commerce, construction, manufacturing,
transportation and tourism” also provided a healthy local economy (County of Riverside 2020).
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
General History of the City of Fontana
According to the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015–2035 (City of Fontana 2018a),
the history of the city is primarily broken up into four periods, or “contexts,” identified as “The
Four Fontanas.” The four periods are “Rural Pioneer Community: 1850 to 1906; Fontana Farms:
1906 to 1942; Steeltown: 1942 to 1983; and Suburban Bedroom Community: 1983 to 2006 (City
of Fontana 2018a).
Rural Pioneer Community: 1850 to 1906
In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, co-founder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber
dealer based out of San Francisco (1860 Federal Census; 1870 Federal Census; University of
Washington Libraries, Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino
County as part of the Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot
acquired other properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate
empire, including almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878, amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and
settlers of the lands surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in
which the United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water
Company was formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to:
[U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These
latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and
using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the
settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long
and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them,
quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to
control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic
Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have
quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888)
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company
platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had
acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the
channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888).
In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana
Development Company purchased Rosena, and by 1905 had begun the building of a farming
complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a
company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982).
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
Fontana Farms: 1906 to 1942
By 1906, Miller had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water
Company assets and created the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company.
Afterward, Miller oversaw the construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from
Lytle Creek, as well as the planting of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Conford
1995).
In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe
railroad tracks. Much of the land to the south of the townsite was utilized as a hog farm, while the
remainder of the Fontana Farms Company land was subdivided into small farms. The smaller
“starter farms” were approximately 2.5 acres and the new owner was able to choose between
grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery. “By 1930 the Fontana
Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time
settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Conford 1995).
Steeltown: 1942 to 1983
Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers
of steel west of the Mississippi River. The Kaiser Steel Mill was built in response to the United
States government’s need for a steel mill and factory on the west coast to construct ships and
airplanes following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Sturm et al. 1995). Following World
War II, the mill shifted production to can manufacturing, tin plating, and pipe milling (Sturm et al.
1995). To provide for his workers’ health needs, Henry J. Kaiser constructed the Fontana Kaiser
Permanente medical facility, which is now the largest managed care organization in the United
States.
The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952 and the Kaiser Steel Mill continued
to expand through the 1950s and 1960s. In addition to health care, Kaiser created the Kaiser
Community Homes to address the burgeoning housing needs of post-war America. Within
Fontana and neighboring Ontario, Kaiser Community Homes provided affordable residential
neighborhoods and housing subdivisions to meet the steel mill workers’ housing needs (City of
Fontana 2018a). “Kaiser Steel also worked with the United Steelworkers of America to develop
an innovative profit-sharing plan in which labor shared in cost savings resulting from technology
and labor productivity improvements” (City of Fontana 2018a). By the late 1970s, the Kaiser Steel
Mill had begun to experience a massive downturn in production, which resulted in a 3,000-person
layoff (Sturm et al. 1995).
Kaiser and their contributions to Fontana and the nation during the mid-twentieth century
can be viewed in the context of the “Post-War Building Boom of 1945–1970 (National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012).” The Kaiser Steel Corp. was important to the in
the expansion of development during the period supplying steel for the construction of buildings
throughout the region and nation. However, the mill ultimately closed its doors and ceased
production in 1983. In 1984, California Steel Industries (CSI) purchased the southern 380 acres
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
of the 480-acre property and portions of the factory were reopened. A 1995 archaeological survey
by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) indicates that the property to the north that was not purchased by
CSI had been demolished by Hollywood movie explosions throughout the 1980s (Sturm et al.
1995). In the late 1990s, construction of the California Speedway resulted in further damage to
original steel mill property (McLean and Monk 1997).
Suburban Bedroom Community: 1983 to 2006
With the closing of the steel mill in 1983, residential development became the primary
driving factor for economic growth in the Fontana (City of Fontana 2018b). Between 1980 and
1987, Fontana’s population doubled from 35,000 to 70,000, assisted by the Fontana
Redevelopment Agency, who provided incentives for housing developers to build within the city
(City of Fontana 2018b; Conford 1995). This process led to the first specific plan and development
agreement for the SouthRidge residential area. Residential development continued to grow
through the 1990s; however, commercial activities in the downtown area declined as new
commercial developments near freeways and the new residential areas pulled shopping away from
the historic downtown core (City of Fontana 2018b). More recently, the city has since become a
transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic
2005; City of Fontana 2018a).
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search was requested on July 21, 2021 from the SCCIC at CSUF
for the Fontana Corporate Center Project and a one-mile search radius and the results were received
on September 23, 2021. The records search results indicate that eight cultural resources are located
within a one-mile radius of the project, none of which are mapped within the project boundaries.
All eight resources are historic in age and include the Kaiser Steel Mill, the historic Southern
Pacific Railroad alignment, and six historic single-family residential buildings (Table 1.3–1).
Table 1.3–1
Cultural Resources Located Within a One-Mile Radius of the
Fontana Corporate Center Project
Site(s) Description
SBR-4131H Kaiser Steel Mill (Point of Historical Interest)
SBR-10,330H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment
P-36-033027, P-36-033107, P-36-033108,
P-36-033109, P-36-033110, and P-36-033111 Historic single-family residence
Two of the resources (SBR-4131H and SBR-10,330H) have a connection to the property,
as Kaiser Steel did utilize the subject property between 1963 and 1983 while the mill was still in
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
operation, while a railroad spur on the project originally connect it to the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The Kaiser Steel Mill building was located approximately 1.5 miles north of the current project
and is listed as a Point of Historical Interest; however, as previously discussed, the mill itself has
been impacted by development and portions have been demolished. A 2008 archaeological study
by CRM Tech determined that “[f]or all practical purposes … Site 36-004131 no longer exists
today” (Ballester 2008).
The records search results also indicated that 21 cultural resource studies have been
conducted within a one-mile radius of the project, none of which covered any portion of the subject
property. The complete records search results can be found within 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 (ADOE)
• The OHP, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD)
• The 1897 and 1944 15' Cucamonga and the 1953 and 1966 P.R. 1975 7.5' Guasti USGS
topographic maps
• 1938, 1948, 1959, 1960, 1977, 1985, 1994, 2003, and 2018 aerial photographs of the
project area
The National Register of Historic Places, ADOE, and BERD did not identify any previously
documented resources within the subject property. However, based on the historic maps and aerial
photographs additional resources were identified as a result of any of the above sources. The
historic maps and aerial photographs (discussed in detail within Section 3.3) indicate that the
property was originally utilized for agriculture, with the eastern half of the project developed for
industrial use between in 1953. Archival research indicates three structures consisting of a front
office, workshop, and manufacturing plant along with an associated railroad spur were constructed
in 1953 on the project for Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company, Inc. which opened in March
of 1954 (San Bernardino Sun 1953, 1960; County of San Bernardino Property Information
Management System [PIMS] 2021).
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. The NAHC SLF search was negative
and did not indicate that sacred sites or Tribal Cultural Resources have been located directly within
or in the vicinity of the project. All correspondence is provided 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. Furthermore, the records search data indicated that historic resources are the
most prevalent surrounding the property. As such, historic buildings and sites asscocated with the
industrial use of the property and surrounding area are the most likely cultural resources to be
encountered within the subject property. Therefore, based upon the records search results, there
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
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.
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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of
the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section
5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially
impaired.
2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or
b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of
the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant; or,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys
and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location
contains unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect
on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are
noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address
impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA
process.
Section 15064.5 (d and e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC, as provided in PRC
SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American
burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action
implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains
from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–1
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which
humans have used the land and resources within the project 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 Fontana Corporate Center Project included the
survey of an 18.53-acre property and the assessment of three mid-twentieth century industrial
buildings. 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 cultural resources, the
goal of the research design 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 properties, this 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
with the nearby structures, qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district?
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–2
• 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 Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an
intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 18.53-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 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 five meters apart and oriented east to west across the property, while
visually inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources
might be located were closely inspected. Photographs documenting survey discoveries and overall
survey conditions were taken frequently. All cultural resources were recorded as necessary
according to the Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) manual, Instructions for Recording
Historical Resources, using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms.
3.1.2 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 archives and the
Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the
Fontana Public Library. Based on the archival research, the ownership of the property has been
compiled (Appendix E). Historic maps and aerial photographs showing the historic development
of the property are provided below. No Sanborn maps are available as the property is located
outside the Fontana coverage areas.
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment
Methods for evaluating the integrity and significance of the historic structures at the
Fontana Corporate Center Project included photographic documentation and a review of available
property records. During the survey, photographs were taken of all building elevations. The
photographs were used to complete an architectural description of the buildings. The original core
structure and all modifications made to the buildings since their initial construction were also
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
documented. The current setting of each structure was compared to the historical setting of the
property. This information was combined with the archival research in order to evaluate the
buildings’ seven aspects of integrity, as well as their potential significance under CEQA
guidelines.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
Project Archaeologist and historian Andrew Garrison conducted the intensive pedestrian
survey of the subject property on July 22, 2021, under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian
Smith. As the subject property is developed and currently an actively-used industrial property
operated by Clark Pacific, hardscape, landscaping, large concentrations of raw materials and
finished products, and industrial buildings cover the entire project (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–3). As
such, ground visibility was poor, limiting the ability to identify any scatters or deposits of
archaeological material.
The survey of the property identified three historic structures along with seven additional
modern structures which have been added through the the decades of use. The structures identified
within the property consist of a large manufacturing plant (Structure 1); a workshop (Structure
2); a front office (Structure 3); a storage shed located in the northeast corner (Structure 4); two
prefabricated trailers (Structures 5 and 7); a collection of steel and prefabricated buildings
connected to create a single building currently used for an employee break area (Structure 6); a
structure which houses electrical equipment in the northeastern portion of the project (Structure
8); a metal cover/canopy along the eastern boundary (Structure 9); and a long series of concrete
storage alcoves connected to a large structure, all along the northern boundary, which are utilized
for the storage, sifting, and sorting of raw materials for use as building façades (Structure 10).
Based on historic aerial photographs, only the manufacturing plant, workshop, and office buildings
(Structures 1, 2, and 3, respectively) along with the railroad spur comprise the historic components
of the property. Structure 4 is not visible until 1977 and portions of Structure 10 are not visible
until 1985 with the remaining structures added through the subsequent years.
As a result of the field survey, three historic buildings were identified consisting of a front
office, a workshop, and a large manufacturing plant, all of which were constructed in 1953; an
associated railroad spur constructed in 1953 was also recorded (Plates 3.2–4 to 3.2–6; Figure 3.2–
1). The three buildings and railroad spur qualify as historic resources that must be evaluated under
CRHR criteria. All the historic components identified within the subject property are located
within the eastern parcel of the project (APN 0238-062-36) which comprises 10.71 acres, just over
half, of the Fontana Corporate Center Project. At present, Clark Pacific also utilizes the western
parcel (APN 0238-062-39), which is not associated with the historic industrial operation within
the subject property. No other cultural resources were observed during the survey.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–7
3.3 Results of Archival Research and Historic Structure Analysis
Within the boundaries of the subject property, one historic property has been identified:
13592 Slover Avenue (a front street facing office; a workshop currently utilized for welding; a
large manufacturing plant; and an associated railroad spur). As such, the parcel containing the
historic components (APN 0238-062-36), was recorded as Site Temp-1 (Figure 3.3–1). The
following section provides the pertinent field results for the significance evaluation for the
residence, which was conducted in accordance with City of Fontana guidelines and cultural
resource evaluation protocols.
3.3.1 History of the Project Area
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office
(GLO) records show that a land patent for the subject property
was issued to Daniel Jerrett in 1869 (Plate 3.3−1). According to
the BLM GLO land patent, in 1869, Jerrett purchased 480 acres
of land in San Bernardino County, including the southern half and
northwest quarter of Section 21 of Township 1 South, Range 6
West, as part of the Land Act of 1820. However, archival records
and the 1897 USGS Cucamonga and San Bernardino 15-minute
quadrangle maps (Figure 3.3–2) indicate that Jerrett never lived
at or built any structures on this property and passed away in 1898
(Ancestry.com 2011).
Unlike much of Fontana, the subject property is located
outside of the land subdivided by the Semi-Tropic Land and
Water Company in the late nineteenth century and later sold by
Fontana Farms in the early twentieth century. Rather, the
Fontana Corporate Center property is situated within an area
historically tied to grape and wine production. The most well-
known vineyard in the region during the early twentieth century was Guasti, which is situated over
4.5 miles to the west of the Fontana Corporate Center Project; however, the property is within an
area often associated with the winery operations of Etiwanda which, now part of Rancho
Cucamonga, was centered in an area just over four miles to the north.
The 1938 aerial photograph shows the property as completely vacant land while to the east,
farm lots associated with Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company and Fontana Farms are clearly
visible (Plate 3.3–2). Based on the Assessor’s Lot Books, in 1937, the subject property was owned
by Sierra Madre Vintage Co. Sierra Madre Vintage Co. was a wine producer founded in 1885 by
Albert Brigden and C.J. Clark and primarily operated out of Lamanda Park in Pasadena (Byles
2014). However, by 1907, their holdings included land within Etiwanda and newspaper records
of sales show that at least a portion of the subject property was deeded to the wine producer in
1915 (San Bernardino Sun 1907, 1915; Los Angeles Times 1916).
Plate 3.3–1: Daniel Jerrett. (Photograph courtesy of Richard
Jerrett, Find-A-Grave.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Sierra Madre Vintage Co. won many awards for their various wines and was one of
the most successful wineries in the San Gabriel Valley (Los Angeles Times 1916; Byles 2014).
Although owned by the winery, it is not clear to what extent the Sierra Madre Vintage Co. used
the subject property for agriculture as the County Assessor’s Lot Books, beginning in 1937, do not
show the land being assessed for any trees or vines, although this could be the result that
Prohibition had on wine production. Regardless, the lot books show that much of the surrounding
area was owned by the Sierra Madre Vintage Co. until the early 1940s when Kaiser Co., Inc., later
Kaiser Steel Corp., began to purchase land for their steel mill operations.
The transfer of the property from the Sierra Madre Vintage Co. and eventual subdivision
to the current parcel alignment is not entirely clear. The Sierra Madre Vintage Co. is still listed as
the owner of the property, which was part of a 41.8-acre lot, when it was assessed in 1953 and the
lot books stop being used. The Grantee/Grantor index shows the property was transferred to the
Security Title Insurance Company in April of 1953, although that same year, the approximately
11-acre western portion of the project, APN 0238-062-39, was acquired by the Graver Tank &
Manufacturing Company, Inc. Further, based on newspaper articles, Graver Tank &
Manufacturing Company, Inc. purchased the property from the Iron Queen Mining Co., a
subsidiary of Kaiser Steel, who originally acquired the project parcels and adjacent lands to
promote the industrialization of the region (San Bernardino County Sun 1953). Regardless, the
historic structures within the Fontana Corporate Center Project were built in 1953 by Graver Tank
& Manufacturing Company, Inc. to construct tanks from steel produced at the Kaiser Steel plant
to the north.
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. was founded by William Graver in 1857 in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania under the name of William Graver Tank Works (Madden 1957).
However, William and the company moved operations throughout the late nineteenth century to
Chicago, Illinois in 1883, Lima, Ohio in 1886, and East Chicago, Indiana in 1888 (Madden 1957).
William Graver Tank Works specialized in steel tanks for grain elevators, oil, and gas storage
(Chicago Tribune 1915). William Graver passed away in 1915 (Chicago Tribune 1915).
Following the death of William Graver the company was known as the Graver Corporation;
however, after being acquired by the Phoenix Manufacturing Company in 1930 the company was
renamed Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. (The Morning Tulsa Daily World 1922;
The Times 1930).
The company continued to specialize in steel tank production. In 1950, Graver Tank &
Manufacturing Company, Inc. was on the losing end of a Supreme Court ruling that would set
precedence in patent law. The company was found to have violated a patent for an electric welding
process held by Linde Air Products Co. (Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. et al. v. Linde Air Products
Co. 1950). Despite the ruling, Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. continued to grow
as evidenced by advertisements from 1956 and 1957, which show that the company had operations
throughout the country supplying all makes of steel tanks (Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–4).
3.0–11
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–14
Officially opening in 1954, the Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. Fontana
plant was managed by William Thomas Hudson until he retired in 1959 (San Bernardino County
Sun 1961, 1975). Hudson was also the vice president and manager of the Rocky Mountain and
Western divisions of the company (San Bernardino Sun 1975). After Hudson retired the Fontana
plant was managed by F.W. Chalberg until it closed 1960 (San Bernardino County Sun 1960).
Although built in 1953, the available aerial photograph from that year still shows the
property as vacant land (Plate 3.3–5). The next available aerial photograph, from 1959, does show
the Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. operations (Plate 3.3–6). Visible are the
manufacturing plant which, as shown in the 1959 aerial photograph, is much smaller than the
current structure; the original rectangular layout of the front office along Slover Avenue; the front
gabled workshop; and the railroad spur which extends into the property from the Southern Pacific
Railroad tracks (SBR-10,330H) north of the subject property, heading south before splitting east
to the manufacturing plant.
Newspaper records indicate the Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. Fontana
plant closed in 1960 and that the property
was acquired by Kaiser Steel Corp. in 1963
(San Bernardino County Sun 1963). The
main Kaiser Steel Mill was located just
north of the subject property. Following
World War II, Kaiser Steel Mill (Plate 3.3–
7) shifted production to can manufacturing,
tin plating, and pipe milling (Sturm et al.
1995). The mill continued to expand
through the 1950s and 1960s. Part of this
expansion included the purchase of the
subject property for the Kaiser Steel
Fabrication Division later known as the
Kaiser Steel Corporation Metal Products
Division (San Bernardino County Sun 1963, 1972). The division was created to produce welded
structural shapes using automatic welding machines able to produce “a range of sizes and
configurations heretofore not available to architects and engineers” (San Bernardino County Sun
1963). Essentially, the property was utilized for the creation of tubing, I-beams, and H-beams, as
well as other structural materials ready for use in construction. With the purchase of the property
Kaiser instituted a “million dollar program involving installation of new equipment and
refurbishing the present facilities” (San Bernardino County Sun 1963).
Plate 3.3–7: Kaiser Steel Mill circa 1949. (Photograph courtesy of Anicic 2006)
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–17
By the late 1970s, the Kaiser Steel Mill had experienced a massive downturn in production,
which resulted in a 3,000-person layoff (Sturm et al. 1995). In 1983, the mill ultimately shut down
and ceased production. However, Kaiser owned the subject property until the steel mill closed in
1983 and was still listed as the owner within the County of San Bernardino PIMS in 1984. Aerial
photographs from 1968, 1977, and 1985 show the extent of the increase in operations performed
by Kaiser (Plates 3.3–8 to 3.3–10). Most notably, the manufacturing plant was expanded, an
employee parking lot was added, and additional structures were added throughout the property.
The subject property was acquired by Tecon Pacific in 1984 and then Clark Pacific
Corporation in 2020; however, Clark Pacific is a continuation of the original Tecon Pacific. The
company specializes in off-site prefabrication of structures and building façades (Clark Pacific
2021). Tecon Pacific added extensively to the subject property, most notably completely
remodeling the front office, expanding the operations west to encompass the western portion of
the subject property and adding multiple prefabricated and permanent structures to the subject
property, as seen on the aerial photographs from 1994, 2003, and 2018 (Plates 3.3–11 to 3.3–13).
Description of Surveyed Resources
Within the Fontana Corporate Center Project, the eastern parcel (APN 0238-062-36)
contains three historic structures: a large manufacturing plant; a workshop; and a street-facing
office along with a railroad spur, all constructed in 1953. All the historic buildings are vernacular
modern industrial buildings.
The large manufacturing plant (Structure 1) consists of a long and tall, steel-framed metal
structure with a side-gabled roof. Large sliding doors are found on the east façade, while the west
façade is open, allowing the property’s railroad spur to enter the building (Plate 3.3–14). However,
the tracks are no longer maintained or utlized by the facility (Plate 3.3–15). Pedestrian entrance
to the plant is found on the south façade by way of a two-story rectangular addition which, based
on the aerial photographs, appears to have been added sometime between 1977 and 1985 (Plate
3.3–16; see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–10). The manufacturing plant has been expanded multiple times
since it was first constructed. The 1959 aerial photograph shows the structure as an approximately
18,700-square-foot building. By 1968, the structure had been expanded on the east and west to
almost 30,000 square feet. By 1977, the building had again been expanded to the east to
approximately 32,000 square feet. Currently, the county has the manufacturing plant listed as
34,200 square feet (Plates 3.3–17 to 3.3–20).
The workshop (Structure 2) consists of a rectangular, steel-framed, corrugated metal
building with a gabled roof (Plate 3.3–21). All the windows of the workshop have been replaced,
with many of them improperly infilled to accommodate smaller windows (Plate 3.3–22). Large
double sliding doors are visible on the north and south façades, allowing for the ingress and egress
of fabricated products (Plate 3.3–23). A large, shed-roofed, corrugated metal lean-to structure
supported by rectangular metal posts has been added to the south façade of the workshop some
time after 1994 (Plate 3.3–24). Also, Stucture 6, added between 1995 and 2003, has been placed
directly west of the workshop providing a break area for current employees (Plate 3.3–25).
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–36
Based upon the 1959 aerial photograph, the front office building (Structure 3) was
originally designed as a rectangular utilitarian modern vernacular style structure. As visible today,
the front office has been remodeled and expanded. The main structure still generally exhibits the
same rectangular floor plan as visible on the 1959 aerial photograph, but the building has been
modified and connected to a series of prefabricated modular structures located along the north
façade (Plate 3.3–26). The office has a flat roof with a large parapet, which appears to be original,
to obscure view of roof top ventilation equipment (Plate 3.3–27). The entire structure is covered
in stucco and the fenestration primarily consists of new vinyl sliding windows (Plate 3.3–28). The
front entrance on the south façade consists of two metal and glass doors surrounded by metal-
framed glass panes situated at the end a gable-covered front entryway. Based upon the aerial
photographs, no landscaping or elaborate hardscaping originally surrounded the office. Currently,
the front office is surrounded by commercial-style landscaping and cement sidewalks (Plate 3.3–
29).
The railroad spur located within the project extends south off the Southern Pacific (Union
Pacific) Railroad (SBR-10,330H), which borders the project to the north, before branching off to
the east into the manufacturing plant (Structure 1). When initially installed in 1953, the eastward-
trending railroad spur served as a method of shunting railroad cars off of the main rail line into the
manufacturing plant (Structure 1). Currently, the spur is almost completely covered by gravel and
equipment and evidently has not been used for quite some time (see Plate 3.3–14). Another
segment of the railroad spur splits off the eastward-trending spur and traverses south through the
property. Similarly, to the eastward-trending spur, the southern spur is nearly completely covered
with equipment and machinery parts, partially paved over, and no longer utilized (see Plate 3.3–
15). Although a portion of this southern spur appears potentially visible on the 1959 historic aerial
photograph (see Plate 3.3–6), later photographs do not show this southward-trending spur until the
1980s (Plate 3.3–10). Therefore, it is unclear is the southward-trending spur is historic or modern.
Regardless, both segments of the railroad spur are included within the boundaries of the recorded
Site Temp-1, and neither segment of the spur retains any historic integrity and are ineligible for
listing on the CRHR.
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 structures within the Fontana Corporate Center Project would require approval from the City
of Fontana as part of the proposed project, CEQA eligibility criteria were used to evaluate the
residences within the subject property as potentially historic buildings. Therefore, criteria for
listing on the CRHR were used to measure the significance of the resources.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–41
Integrity Evaluations
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
significance. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly
relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while
condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances,
integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if a resource
is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then
the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted.
In order to determine whether or not Temp-1 is eligible for listing, CRHR eligibility criteria
were used. Furthermore, BFSA based the review upon the recommended criteria listed in the
National Register Bulletin No. 15: 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. Therefore, Temp-1 retains
integrity of location.
2. Integrity of Design [refers to] the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the building and any
architectural features present.
o Structure 1, Manufacturing Plant: Although the plant still operates for the
fabrication of product, the building has been modified through the years to
better serve the purpose of the product being manufactured within it. The large
manufacturing plant has been expanded through the years to almost double the
size of the original structure. Further, an addition has been added to the south
façade at the entrance of the plant. The abandonment of the associated railroad
spur has further diminished the original design of the structure and it no longer
operates as it was originally intended, by loading material directly into rail cars.
Therefore, the manufacturing plant does not retain integrity of design.
o Structure 2, Workshop: The general footprint of the workshop appears similar
to that shown in the 1959 aerial photograph; however, a large steel framed lean-
to has been added to the south façade, essentially expanding the structure.
Further, all the building’s windows have been altered with many being
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–42
improperly infilled. Finally, although not directly connected to the building,
the addition of the employee break building created through a hodgepodge of
connected modular units (Structure 6) directly adjacent to the workshop has
altered the space surrounding the workshop. Therefore, the workshop does not
retain integrity of design.
o Structure 3, Front Office: The front office has been completely altered having
been subjected to a remodel during the early 2000s. All the windows have been
replaced and the north façade of the building has been attached to a series of
modular prefabricated structures. The area surrounding the office has been
changed and improved to included walkways and landscaping. Therefore, the
front office does not retain integrity of design.
All of the buildings which comprise Temp-1 have been altered to some degree which
has impacted their 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. Generally, Temp-1 was constructed
in the mid-twentieth century. During this time, the surrounding area was beginning to
shift from agricultural to heavy industrial uses. The Kaiser Steel Mill had already
begun their major operations north of the subject property but properties to the east still
consisted of rural residences, while to the south and west the properties remained
primarily vacant farmland. Aerial imagery shows that the setting of Temp-1 changed
little until after 1977. By 1985, there was an influx of development in the surrounding
properties within the former agricultural land to the west and south and a shift from the
rural residences to the east to industrial properties. By 1994, the setting had completely
been altered to heavy industrial properties similar to Temp-1 and the construction of
large light industrial warehouses south of the subject property. In the subsequent
decades, the former Kaiser Steel Mill to the north was demolished for the California
Speedway and the transformation of the surrounding area from heavy industrial to light
industrial warehouse and distribution centers has increased. Therefore, Temp-1 no
longer retains the same open space, viewshed, and general built environment and does
not 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–43
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.
o Structure 1, Manufacturing Plant: Generally, the materials that originally
comprised the manufacturing plant (steel frame and a corrugated metal façade)
have remained. However, the addition of the front entrance structure to the
south façade has introduced materials not original to the building. Further,
although the expansion to the west and east of the manufacturing plant appears
to have maintained the simple utilitarian materials, the expansion of the
building over the decades has resulted in a structure that is now comprised of
almost more non-original materials than original materials. Therefore, the
manufacturing plant does not retain integrity of materials.
o Structure 2, Workshop: As with the manufacturing plant, the framing and
general façades of the workshop still retain the simple utilitarian material.
However, the alterations to the windows, many of which have been improperly
infilled, combined with the addition of a new steel-framed lean-to structure
extending the building to the south has diminished the workshop’s integrity of
materials. Therefore, the workshop does not retain integrity of materials.
o Structure 3, Front Office: The front office has been completely altered having
been subjected to a remodel during the early 2000s. All of the windows have
been replaced and the north façade of the building has been attached to a series
of modular prefabricated structures. Therefore, the front office 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 building found within the Fontana Corporate
Center Project all appear to have been average and utilitarian. While the non-original
portions of the buildings also appear to have been constructed using the same level of
workmanship, the modifications to each structure have impacted the initial
workmanship the buildings may have once portrayed. Therefore, the buildings do not
retain 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–44
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 the buildings has been lost. In addition,
the modifications affecting the original size, plan, shape, and style of the buildings have
negatively impacted their appearance. Further the addition of multiple modern
structures throughout the property and abandonment of the associated railroad spur has
further diminished the aesthetic and historic sense of the period of construction.
Therefore, Temp-1 does not retain integrity of feeling.
7. Integrity of Association [refers to] the direct link between an important historic event
or person and a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
association for the resource was assessed by evaluating the relevant data and
information potential to address any research questions relevant to the history of the
Fontana area or the state of California. The structures within Site Temp-1 were
constructed by Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. for the fabrication of
tanks utilizing Kaiser steel, and then by Kaiser Steel Corp. for the prefabrication of
steel structures. Both Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Kaiser Steel
Corp. were important national companies, especially following World War II and the
subsequent Post-War Building Boom (1945-1970). Although Graver Tank &
Manufacturing Company, Inc.’s ownership of the property lasted just under 10 years
and the Fontana plant was only one of many they had nationwide, their involvement
with the property and development of an industrial fabrication facility later utilized by
Kaiser Steel Corp. is notable. However, as discussed above, Kaiser Steel Corp. altered
the facility to fit their manufacturing needs by expanding the manufacturing plant.
Regardless, the association of the property with Kaiser Steel Corp. also signifies an
association with a significant company that contributed to the development of the
Fontana and the nation. Although the property is historically associated with the
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Kaiser Steel Corp., the loss of the
other aspects of integrity, including continued additions to the property as a whole to
facilitate the current fabrication process carried out by Clark Pacific, has hindered the
ability of the property to convey its association with Graver Tank & Manufacturing
Company, Inc. and Kaiser Steel Corp. Therefore, Site Temp-1 no longer retains
integrity of association.
Site Temp-1 was determined to meet only one category of the integrity analysis: location.
Therefore, Site Temp-1 does not retain integrity of setting, materials, design, workmanship,
feeling, or association, due to extensive retrofitting/modifications to the buildings and their
surroundings.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–45
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.
As discussed above, the property is historically associated with Graver Tank &
Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Kaiser Steel Corp. which both were large
corporation’s integral to the national building boom that proceeded World War II.
However, impacts to the property’s integrity have hindered the ability of the property
to accurately convey this association. The manufacturing plant has been expanded, the
workshop has been altered, the front office has been completely remodeled, the
associated railroad spur has been abandoned, and the entire campus has been altered
with the introduction of multiple modular structures. Therefore, Site Temp-1 is not
eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 2.
• CRHR Criterion 2:
It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Historical research does not indicate that the property is associated with the lives of
important individuals. Therefore, Site Temp-1 is not eligible for designation under
CRHR Criterion 2.
• CRHR Criterion 3:
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses
high artistic values.
No information could be found concerning any of the architects or builders for the
historic buildings. As is common with industrial developments, the buildings were
constructed of utilitarian design to serve their specific purpose and have undergone
various modifications to continue their use. Further, due to the simplified nature of
the original designs and a lack of noteworthy architectural elements, none of the
buildings located within Fontana Corporate Center Project embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction and none were
designed or built by an important creative individual. In addition, none of the buildings
possess high artistic values. Therefore, none of buildings at Site Temp-1 are eligible
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 manufacturing plant,
warehouse, and front office are common mid-century industrial buildings which lack
integrity, are not associated with any significant persons, and not constructed using
unique or innovative methods of construction, as they currently stand, they cannot yield
any additional information about the history of Fontana or the state of California.
Therefore, Site Temp-1 is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 4.
Findings and Conclusions
The historic buildings and features located within the Fontana Corporate Center Project
(Temp-1 [manufacturing plant, workshop, front office, and associated railroad spur]) are
evaluated as not historically or architecturally significant under CEQA. Although associated
with Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company, Inc., Kaiser Steel Corp., and contributions to
the Post War development of the region, the buildings do not retain a sufficient level of integrity
to convey this association. Due to the lack of integrity combined with a lack of any
association with significant persons or noteworthy architectural elements, Site Temp-1 is not
eligible for listing on the CRHR. As such, no mitigation measures are required for any future
alterations or planned demolition of the buildings.
3.4 Discussion/Summary
During the field survey, three historic structures (a large manufacturing plant; a workshop;
and a front street facing office) along with a railroad spur constructed in 1953 were identified and
recorded as Temp-1. No other cultural resources were observed during the survey. Site Temp-1
is evaluated as not historically or architecturally significant under any CEQA criteria.
3.0–46
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Resource Importance
The cultural resources survey of the Fontana Corporate Center Project identified one
historic property within the project boundaries which has been recorded as Site Temp-1. The
conclusion of the current assessment is that Temp-1 is not significant under CEQA criteria 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 Fontana Corporate Center Project will demolish the
buildings at 13592 Slover Avenue. However, the removal of these buildings as part of the
development of the property will not constitute an adverse impact because the buildings have been
evaluated as not significant under CEQA criteria and not eligible for listing on the CRHR. Further,
given the lack of any previously identified prehistoric sites within or near the property, there is
little potential for any prehistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed
development. However, the potential does still exist that previously unidentified historic deposits
may be present that are related to the historic occupation of this location. 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 Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES
AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed development will impact one historic property located within the project
boundaries (13592 Slover Avenue), which has been recorded as Site Temp-1; however, Temp-1 is
evaluated as lacking integrity and any further research potential, impacts have been determined to
be not significant. Based upon the evaluation of the buildings at Site Temp-1, site-specific
mitigation measures will not be required as a condition of approval for the project. Further,
although the survey did not identify any archaeological resources, a MMRP is still recommended
because grading may expose historic features or deposits associated with the historic occupation
of the project since 1953. Based upon this potential, monitoring of grading is recommended to
prevent the inadvertent destruction of any previously unidentified historic period cultural deposits
that were not observed or detected during the current cultural resources study. In light of the fact
that no prehistoric resources have been recorded within or within proximity of the property, Native
American monitoring is not recommended during grading, unless a discovery of a prehistoric site
or deposit occurs, at which time a Native American monitor should be incorporated into the
monitoring program.
5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Fontana Corporate Center Project contains a historic resource, Site Temp-1, that does
not require any mitigation measures. However, to mitigate potential impacts to resources that have
not yet been detected, a MMRP is recommended as a condition of approval.
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 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–2
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. Impacts to significant resources must be
mitigated before ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be
allowed to resume.
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. 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 then 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 county coroner 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 county coroner in consultation with the PI
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–3
concerning the provenance of the remains.
b. The county 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 county 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 county coroner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, ONLY the
county coroner 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 county coroner
has completed coordination to begin the consultation process (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 county coroner and notify them of the historic-era
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–4
context of the burial.
b. The county 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 interment 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
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 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
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–5
and any interested parties.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Fontana Corporate Center Project was directed
by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Project
Archaeologist and historian Andrew Garrison. The report text was prepared by Andrew Garrison
and Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Andrew Garrison and Jillian Conroy.
Technical editing and report production were conducted by Courtney McNair. The SCCIC at CSU
Fullerton provided the archaeological records search information. Archival research was
conducted at the BFSA research library, the Fontana Historical Society, the Fontana Public
Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn
Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the Fontana Public Library.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
2011 California, Pioneer and Immigrant Files, 1790-1950 [database online]. Provo, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Original data from the California State Library,
Sacramento, California.
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.
Ballester, Daniel
2008 Site form update: CA-SBR-4131H. On file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Various dates. Research library holdings including Sanborn maps, USGS maps, aerial
photographs, city directories, published regional histories, aerial photographs, and
geologic and paleontological references.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Byles, Stuart Douglass
2014 Los Angeles Wine: A History from the Mission Era to the Present. American Palate, A
Division of the History Press, Charleston, South Carolina.
Chicago Tribune
1915 Obituary: William Graver. 27 August:11. Chicago, Illinois.
City of Fontana
2018a Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035. Approved and Adopted by City
Council November 13, 2018. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan-
Documents-11-13-2018, accessed June 29, 2021.
2018b Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-
Plan-Update, accessed June 29, 2021.
City of Redlands
2010 City of Redlands General Plan.
City of San Bernardino
2015 History of San Bernardino. Electronic document, https://www.ci.san-
bernardino.ca.us/about/history/history_of_san_bernardino_(short_version).asp,
accessed November 10, 2015.
Clark Pacific
2021 About Us. Electronic document, https://www.clarkpacific.com/about-us/, accessed
August 26, 2021.
Conford, Danial (editor)
1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and Oxford, California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
County of Riverside
2020 Riverside County History. Electronic document, https://countyofriverside.us/Visitors
/CountyofRiversideInformation/RiversideCountyHistory.aspx, accessed May 5, 2020.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
County of San Bernardino Property Information Management System (PIMS)
2021 Property Information Management System Database. Electronic document,
http://www.sbcounty.gov/assessor/pims/PIMSINTERFACE.ASPX, accessed August
25, 2021.
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.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1-52. University of California, Berkeley.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Gallegos, Dennis
1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos
Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual
Papers 2(1).
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego
County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast,
edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. v. Linde Air Products Co. (339 U.S. 605)
1950 Electronic document, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/339/605,
accessed August 26, 2021.
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 Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690-693. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Lech, Steve
2004 American Local History Network’s Page for Riverside County, California. Electronic
document, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/riverside/, accessed March 28,
2006.
Los Angeles Times
1916 Sierra Madre Vintage Co. 1 January:79. Los Angeles, California.
Lyman, Edward Leo
1989 The Rise and Decline of Mormon San Bernardino. Brigham Young University Studies
29(4):43-63. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Madden, Ray. J.
1957 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. – Centennial Anniversary. 103 Cong. Rec. (Bound)
– Extensions of Remarks: June 20, 1957, Vol. 103, Part 7. Proceedings of Congress
and General Congressional Publications, Washington, D.C.
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077): 969-974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189-213. Academic Press, London.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1-A19. Infotec Research,
Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California.
McLean, Deborah and Jani Monk
1997 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Kaiser West End Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA. 12+PP. LSA. Unpublished report on file at the South Central
Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.
Miller, J.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern
California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis on file at the University of California at
San Diego, San Diego, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-
46.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2012 A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II
Housing. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Pourade, Richard F.
1964 The Glory Years. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San
Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM
Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego
Museum of Man.
San Bernardino County Sun
1907 Advertisement: Land for Sale at Etiwanda. 15 October:3. San Bernardino, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–6
1915 Land Sales: R-w Deed Sierra Madre Vintage Co. to S.B. Co., Sec 21-1S-6W. 17
June:8. San Bernardino, California.
1953 Indiana Concern Buys Tract Near Kaiser Plant. 11 November:17. San Bernardino,
California.
1960 Fontana Plant Shuts Down; 20 Lose Jobs. 17 February:19. San Bernardino, California.
1961 San Bernardinan Conducts Second Major Metals Hunt. 10 September:30. San
Bernardino, California.
1963 Steel Firm Buys Plant; to Produce Structural Shapes. 23 January:17. San Bernardino,
California.
1972 Advertisement: Help Wanted, Male Riggers, Kaiser Steel Corp, 13592 Slover. 7
June:38. San Bernardino, California.
1975 Obituary: William Hudson, Redlands. 1 December:21. San Bernardino, California.
Smallwood, Josh
2006 Site record form for Site SBR-8092/H. On file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center, California State University at Fullerton.
SoilWeb
2021 An Online Soil Survey Browser. University of California Davis Agriculture and
Natural Resources. Electronic document, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu
/gmap/, accessed August 25, 2021.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Sturm, Bradley L., Jani Monk, and Ivan H. Strudwick
1995 Cultural Resources Survey & National Register Assessment of the Kaiser Steel Mill
for the California Speedway Project, Fontana, CA. LSA. Unpublished report on file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University,
Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
The Morning Tulsa Daily World
1922 Advertisement: Graver Tanks. 6 August:16. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–7
The Times
1930 Graver Transfer is Not a Merger. 3 May:1. Munster, Indiana.
United States Bureau of the Census
Various dates
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701-710.
Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural
Development of Batequitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of
California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246-338.
Wirths, Todd A.
2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Fontana Corporate Center Project. 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 Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A Resumes of Key Personnel
Brian F. Smith, MA
Owner, Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982
Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975
Professional Memberships
Society for California Archaeology
Experience
Principal Investigator 1977–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and
Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California,
Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology
from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports
prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies,
including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr.
Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments
(CalTrans).
Professional Accomplishments
These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added
significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in
the Southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been
principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted.
Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San
Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape
Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark
Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the
Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra
Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street
Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707
10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007),
Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007),
Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue
(2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003),
Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001).
1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the
Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla
area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk
faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014).
San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the
San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey
documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018).
Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an
important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by
BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area.
Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program
in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data
recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the
preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented
important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area
(2017).
The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon
resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric
and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property
since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area
encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating
that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015).
Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of
San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and
over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an
occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017).
Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area
of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the
1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of
metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and
the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological
program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007).
4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of
the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million
artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the
largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data
that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and
regional prehistoric settlement patterns.
Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of
man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego.
Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego
Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and
Dr. James R. Moriarty.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town
State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed
in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992),
Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at
the Old San Diego Inn (1988).
Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar
area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of
religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of
major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site
over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with
nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study.
City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of
pipeline in the city and county of San Diego.
Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce
a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information
was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city
showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort
also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City
policy.
Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of
Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the
Planning Department of the City.
The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped
agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the
city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy
Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres
and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews;
evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of
cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report.
February- September 2002.
Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13
Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres
and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of
field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co-
authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County:
Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed
video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project
coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of
potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report. January, February, and July 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA,
Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric
and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4
for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of
cultural resources project report. January-March 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside
County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic
sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American
consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines;
cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch,
Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five
historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature
recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA
guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000.
Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for
the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews;
development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections
cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April
2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project
manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination;
assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project
report. April 2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California:
Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project
coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural
resources project report. April 2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California:
Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project
coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural
resources project report. March-April 2000.
Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina
Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included
direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of
artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project
report in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa,
California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines;
authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California:
Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP
eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation;
meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report. December 1999-January 2000.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5
Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San
Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and
botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of
artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000.
Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of
Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development
of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of
site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project
report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000.
Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor—
included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel.
September 1999.
Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center,
California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based
on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis;
authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment
Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews;
development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on
CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis;
authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999.
Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project,
Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of
sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and
curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula
Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and
curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of
cultural resources project report. July 1999.
Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple
Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project
manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple
field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental
Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report.
August 1997- January 2000.
Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project
archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric
and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including
prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural
resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995.
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009
Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005
Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005
Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal
agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and
perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records
checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric
lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private
clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological
monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed
projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory
direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California
Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant-
funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California
Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural
resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project,
City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San
Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La
Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside
County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel
Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Mills Act application.
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys,
Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian
Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic
Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from
CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual
Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those
Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of
experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B Site Record Form
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX E Historic Documents
Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Corporate Center Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ownership Information
1
Chain of Title
13592 Slover Avenue
Owner Records for APN 0238-062-36
Grantor/Owner Grantee Date Source
Sierra Madre Vintage Co. Security Title Ins. Co. 1952 County Lot Book 3155,
Page 333
Kaiser Steel Corp Tecon Pacific 1984
Online Assessors Data
(PIMS) Doc #
8426399800000
Tecon Pacific
Clark, Robert E. Separate Prop
Liv Tr., Clark, James R. &
Sharron K. Rev TR 7/98, Clark,
Donald G. Corporation, Clark,
Robert E. Corporation, Clark-
Pacific Corporation
1989
Online Assessors Data
(PIMS) Doc #
8938956700000
Clark, Robert E. Separate Prop
Liv Tr., Clark, James R. &
Sharron K. Rev TR 7/98, Clark,
Donald G. Corporation, Clark,
Robert E. Corporation, Clark-
Pacific Corporation
CP Fontana, LLC 2020
Online Assessors Data
(PIMS) Doc #
20200023838