HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C - Cultural Resources ReportsAPPENDIX C
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTS
APPENDIX C1
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
Citrus West Project
City of Fontana , San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:
Kari Cano
Kimley-Horn
3880 Lemon Street Suite 420
Riverside, California 92501
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
BCR Consulting LLC
505 West 8th St.
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. KIM2117
National Archaeological Data Base Information:
Type of Study: Reconnaissance Cultural Resources Assessment
Resources Recorded: None
Keywords: Fontana
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Devore, California (1988)
November 29, 2021
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus West Project (the project) located in the City of
Fontana (City), San Bernardino County, California. Tasks completed for the scope of work
include a cultural resources records search, an intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources
survey, Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission, and
paleontological overview. These tasks were performed in partial fulfillment of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological
records search. This research has revealed that 19 cultural resource studies have taken
place resulting in the recording of three cultural resources (all historic-period) within one
half-mile of the project site. Two of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural
resources but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. The Historic-
Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (designated P-36-15376) encompasses the
project site, although no components of that resource have ever been identified within the
project site boundaries.
The records search data and field survey did not yield any cultural resources within the
project site boundaries. Conditions have failed to indicate sensitivity for buried cultural
resources. Therefore, BCR Consulting recommends that no additional cultural resource
work or monitoring is necessary for any earthmoving proposed within the project site.
However, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find,
diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The NAHC has
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Misison Indians – Kizh Nation for more
information regarding this finding. The City will initiate Senate Bill (SB) 18 Native American
Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native
American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report.
However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff
is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the
project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The
appended Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix C has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan
deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial
units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to
be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the
likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would
increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project
area or within a 1 mile radius.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
iii
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the
Citrus East Project [or the Citrus West Project] disturbs deeper sediment dating to
the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would
be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of
the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during
development should be observed.
Please note that the Paleontological Overview cites the Citrus East Project, which is located
adjacent to the east of Citrus West. Review of Diblee & Minch (2003) shows that the
sediments and sensitivity recommendations for paleontological sensitivity at each property
are identical.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect
the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................. ii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................... 1
NATURAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 4
CULTURAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 5
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 5
ETHNOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 5 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................ 6
PERSONNEL ........................................................................................................................ 7
METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 8
RECORDS SEARCH ....................................................................................................... 8
FIELD SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 8
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 8
RECORDS SEARCH ....................................................................................................... 8
FIELD SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 8
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 9
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ....................................................................................................... 2
TABLES
A: Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site ............................................ 8
APPENDICES
A: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
B: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH C: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
D: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
1
INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus West Project (the project) located in the City of
Fontana (City), San Bernardino County, California. An intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources survey of the project site was completed in partial fulfillment of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The project site is located in Section 24 of
Township 1 North, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Devore, California (1988) 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects
undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of
Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “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” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)).
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that
meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources
(California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code
§ 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §
5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “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…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the
lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).
The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project 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 the California Register. If an
impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible
measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of
significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on
the resource.
Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally,
a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
3
meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), §
15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the
National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one of
more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California
Register.
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources
of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical
resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic
preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for
Designation:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in
order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this
report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be
evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California
Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the
resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Senate Bill 18. California Senate Bill 18 states that prior to a local (city or county)
government’s adoption of any general plan or specific plan, or amendment to general and
specific plans, or a designation of open space land proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the
city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the
purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to Cultural Places.
A Cultural Place is defined in the PRC sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 as:
1. Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site,
or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9), or;
2. Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1,
including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any archaeological or
historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
4
The intent of SB-18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal governments and
local governments (“government-to-government”) at the earliest possible point in the
planning process so that cultural places can be identified and preserved and to determine
necessary levels of confidentiality regarding Cultural Place locations and uses. According to
the Government Code (GC) Section 65352.4, “consultation” is defined as:
The meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the
views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where
feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native
American Tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s
sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for confidentiality
with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance.
Since the City will initiate and carry out the required SB18 Native American Consultation, the
results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used
during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff are available to answer questions
and address comments as necessary.
Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on
paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on
paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code
specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor.
Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of
paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to
analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential
impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in
the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not
summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by professional
paleontologists from the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix C. NATURAL SETTING
The elevation of the project site is approximately 1640 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The property remained vacant and relatively unchanged from 1938 to 1994. Between the
years of 1994 and 2002 the property was subjected to clearing and grubbing (United States Department of Agriculture 1938, 1959, 1966, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, 2016, 2018). The project site is composed of alluvial fan deposits derived from Lytle
Creek dating from the Late Pleistocene to Holocene (Dibblee Jr. 2003). The current study
has not yielded any evidence that local sediments have produced raw materials used in
prehistoric tool manufacture within 0.5-miles of the project site. Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37).
Although recent and historical impacts have decimated local vegetation, remnants of a
formerly dominant coastal sage scrub vegetation community have been sporadically
observed in the area. Signature plant species include black sage (Salvia mellifera), California brittlebush (Encelia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum),
California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), golden yarrow
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
5
(Eriophyllum confertiflorum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus
integrifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diverilobum), purple sage (Salvia leucophyla), sticky
monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), sugar bush (Rhus ovate), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), coastal century plant (Agave shawii), coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera), Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera), many-stemmed
liveforever (Dudleya multicaulis), our Lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei), prickly pear cactus
(Opuntia sp.) (Williams et al. 2008:118-119). Signature animal species within Coastal Sage
Scrub habitat include the kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), California horned lizard
(Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), orange throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperthrus), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater), California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), California quail
(Callipepla californica), and San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunnecapillus
sandiegensis) (Williams et al. 2008:118-120). Local native groups made use of many of
these species (see Lightfoot and Parrish 2008). CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The local prehistoric cultural setting has been organized into many chronological
frameworks (see Warren and Crabtree 1986; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Lanning 1963; Hunt 1960; Wallace 1958, 1962, 1978; Campbell and Campbell 1935), although there is no
definitive sequence for the region. The difficulties in establishing cultural chronologies for
western San Bernardino County are a function of its enormous size and the small amount of
archaeological excavations conducted there. Moreover, throughout prehistory many groups
have occupied the area and their territories often overlap spatially and chronologically resulting in mixed artifact deposits. Due to dry climate and capricious geological processes,
these artifacts rarely become integrated in-situ. Lacking a milieu hospitable to the
preservation of cultural midden, local chronologies have relied upon temporally diagnostic
artifacts, such as projectile points, or upon the presence/absence of other temporal
indicators, such as groundstone. Such methods are instructive, but can be limited by prehistoric occupants’ concurrent use of different artifact styles, or by artifact re-use or re-
sharpening, as well as researchers’ mistaken diagnosis, and other factors (see Flenniken
1985; Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989). Recognizing the
shortcomings of comparative temporal indicators, this study recommends review of Warren
and Crabree (1986), who have drawn upon this method to produce a commonly cited and relatively comprehensive chronology.
Ethnography
The project site vicinity has been peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano. Each
group consisted of semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers who spoke a variation of the Takic
language subfamily. Individual ethnographic summaries are provided below.
Gabrielino. The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers
reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith
1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when
Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other
brief encounters took place over the years, and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the
Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and
customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
6
greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gabrielino
villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and
intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often
administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights
and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food
were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing
grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland
regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote,
bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles
were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).
Serrano. The Uto-Aztecan “Serrano” people occupied the western Mojave Desert periphery.
Kroeber (1925) applied the generic term “Serrano” to four groups, each with distinct
territories: the Kitanemuk, Tataviam, Vanyume, and Serrano. Only one group, in the San
Bernardino Mountains and West-Central Mojave Desert, ethnically claims the term Serrano.
Bean and Smith (1978) indicate that the Vanyume, an obscure Takic population, was found along the Mojave River at the time of Spanish contact. The Kitanemuk lived to the north and
west, while the Tataviam lived to the west. The Serrano lived mainly to the south (Bean and
Smith 1978). All may have used the western Mojave area seasonally (see deBarros 2004;
Lightfoot and Parrish 2009). Historical records are unclear concerning precise territory and
village locations.
History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period
(1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period
(1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard
called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a
guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the
desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta
California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for
San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino,
crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the
San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to
decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions,
reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes (Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle
industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.
Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for
beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However,
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
7
beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from
New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market
collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of
disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and
real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic
pursuits that have continued to proliferate to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland
1941).
Local Sequence (Brunzell 2017:5). In 1851, Mormons settling in the San Bernardino Valley
purchased the land from Don Antonio Maria Lugo. Early communities in the San Bernardino
County area started with this group of Mormons, although most returned to Salt Lake City in
1857. The Southern Pacific Railroad moved into the San Bernardino Valley in 1875, and the
Santa Fe Railroad built a stop in the Fontana area in 1887, naming it Rosena. A trickle of
settlement continued, and there were around 25 families living there by the time A. B. Miller
arrived in 1905. He purchased the land the next year, and a town was laid out in 1909.
Settlement was successfully promoted by a dedication ceremony and celebration in 1913, at
which a number of plots in the area were sold. By 1927, there were 399 families with land in
the area, and the township was officially created in 1929.
The Semi-Tropic Water and Land Company incorporated in 1887 to sell real estate and
water rights in San Bernardino County. The company acquired 285,000 acres of land along
ten miles of Lytle Creek, giving it riparian rights and allowing it to control and sell the water.
The company laid out small towns including Fontana, Rialto, Sansevaine, and Bloomington
on its land holdings. In 1891, the company subdivided most of the land surrounding the town
sites into 20-acre parcels it called “farm lots.” Successful agricultural endeavors resulted in
residential and institutional expansion during the 1920s. Between 1924 and 1926, the school
district was established, the American Legion Post 262 was constructed, and the Fontana
Woman’s Club House was established and constructed. Proliferation of the automobile was
accompanied by an expanded infrastructure of paved roads and two garages and several
service stations were constructed.
Fontana remained an agricultural area for the first few decades of its existence; citrus, grain,
grape, poultry, cattle, and swine production formed the basis of the local economy. World
War II changed this dynamic with the establishment of the Fontana Kaiser Steel plant in
1942, the first steel mill west of the Mississippi. Fontana quickly became the West Coast’s
leading steel producer, and the plant remained in operation until 1984. Mickey Thompson’s
Fontana International Drag Way, an important drag racing strip, was established in the
1950s. While it no longer operates, Fontana retains a connection to drag racing with both a
new drag strip and an automobile museum. Today, Fontana has a population of over
175,000 and occupies approximately 56 square miles. Shipping and trucking play a major
role in the city’s economy.
PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the
current study and compiled the technical report. The South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological
records search. BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nicholas Shepetuck and
Archaeological Field Technician Fabian Martinez completed the pedestrian field survey.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
8
METHODS
Records Search
Prior to fieldwork, BCR Consulting requested an archaeological records search from the
SCCIC. The records search completed a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources, and survey and
excavation reports generated from projects completed within one half-mile of the project
site. In addition, a review was conducted of the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and
documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of
National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
Field Survey
An archaeological pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on September 2, 2021. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects approximately 15 meters
apart across 100 percent of the project site. Soil exposures, including natural and artificial
clearings were carefully inspected for evidence of cultural resources.
RESULTS
Records Search
The SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton completed the cultural resources records
search. This research has revealed that 19 cultural resource studies have taken place
resulting in the recording of three cultural resources (all historic-period) within one half-mile
of the project site. Two of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural resources but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. The Historic-
Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (designated P-36-15376) encompasses the
project site, although no components of that resource have ever been identified within the
project site boundaries. Results are summarized in Table A, and a comprehensive records
search bibliography is provided in Appendix A.
Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site
USGS 7.5
Min. Quad. Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of Project Site
Cultural Resource
Studies Within One Half-
Mile of Project Site
Devore,
California
(1980)
P-36-6587: Historic-Period Foundations (1/4 Mile SE)
P-36-6588: Historic-Period Foundations (Adjacent SE)
P-36-15376: Historic-Period Grapeland Homesteads/WaterWorks (Encompasses Project Site)
SB-1407, 1611, 1737,
1983, 2064, 2096, 2621*,
3049, 3527, 3957, 4020, 4021, 4022, 4209, 5088,
5089*, 6986, 7375, 7990
Field Survey
During the field survey, BCR Consulting staff carefully inspected the project site, and
identified no cultural resources within its boundaries. Surface visibility was 80 percent within the project site. Sediments consisted of light grayish brown, dry clayey silt with moderate
gravel that was subrounded. The property vegetation was mainly dried seasonal grasses
and weeds.
*Previously assessed the project site for cultural resources.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
9
RECOMMENDATIONS
BCR Consulting conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus West Project
located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The records search data
and field survey did not yield any cultural resources within the project area. Conditions have failed to indicate sensitivity for buried cultural resources. Therefore, BCR Consulting
recommends that no additional cultural resource work or monitoring is necessary for any
earthmoving proposed within the project site. However, if previously undocumented cultural
resources are identified during earthmoving, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted
to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The NAHC has
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Misison Indians – Kizh Nation for more
information regarding this finding. The City will initiate Senate Bill (SB) 18 Native American
Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native
American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report.
However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff
is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the
project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The
appended Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix C has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan
deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial
units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to
be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the
likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would
increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project
area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the
Citrus East Project [or the Citrus West Project] disturbs deeper sediment dating to
the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would
be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of
the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during
development should be observed.
Please note that the Paleontological Overview cites the Citrus East Project, which is located
adjacent to the east of Citrus West. Review of Diblee & Minch (2003) shows that the
sediments and sensitivity recommendations for paleontological sensitivity at each property
are identical.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
10
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect
the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
11
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin and Interior
Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 3:1-26.
Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's
Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians
of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.
Brunzell, David
2017 Cultural Resources Assessment El Paseo Project, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. On File at the South-Central Coastal Information
Center. Fullerton, California.
Campbell, E., and W. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin. Southwest Museum Papers 9:1-51.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino,
California: Huntington Library.
deBarros, Phil 2004 Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan Rancho Las Flores Project,
Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California. On File at the SCCIC.
Dibblee Jr., Thomas W. and John A. Minch 2003 Geologic Map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California.
Electronic Document: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71731.htm.
Accessed 9/10/2021 and 11/29/2021.
Flenniken, J.J. 1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. Stone Tool Analysis: Essays
in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, and M.G. Pavesic.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Flenniken, J.J. and A.W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
12
Flenniken, J.J. and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American
Anthropologist 91:149-158.
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of
1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Hunt, Alice P. 1960 The Archaeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California. University of Utah
Anthropological Papers No. 47.
Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. University of California Press. Los Angeles
Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted in 1976, Dover. New York.
Lanning, Edward P. 1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site (Iny-372). University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment, an Introduction. UC Press, Berkeley.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum
Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.
United States Department of Agriculture
1938 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
1959 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed 9/10/2021.
1966 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
1980 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed 9/10/2021.
1994 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2002 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
13
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2005 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2009 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2010 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. Accessed 9/10/2021.
2012 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2014 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2016 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
2018 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed 9/10/2021.
United States Geological Survey 1988 Devore, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Wallace, William J.
1958 Archaeological Investigation in Death Valley National Monument. University of
California Archaeological Survey Reports 42:7-22.
1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American
Antiquity 28(2):172-180.
1978 The Southern Valley Yokuts, and The Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp. 448-470.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Warren, Claude N. and R.H. Crabtree
1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp.183-193.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California
Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
APPENDIX A
RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-01407 1983 HISTORICAL BRIEF ON GRAPELAND,
SIERRA HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
FONTANA HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
ANICIC, JR., JOHN
CHARLES
NADB-R - 1061407;
Voided - 83-9.3
SB-01611 1986 A CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE LA CUESTA
PROPERTY, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO BISSELL, RONALD M.36-006588NADB-R - 1061611;
Paleo - ;
Voided - 86-12.7
SB-01611A 1986 ASSESSMENT OF THE
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR
THE LA CUESTA SPECIFIC PLAN,
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO RASCHKE, ROD
SB-01737 1987 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY REPORT
FOR THE LA CUESTA PROPERTY:
HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HATHEWAY AND
MCKENNA
HATHEWAY, ROGER G.
and JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA
36-011505NADB-R - 1061737;
Voided - 87-10.8
SB-01983 1989 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE LA
CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA, PHASES 2,
3, 4, AND 5, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.MCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1061983;
Voided - 89-12.3
SB-02064 1990 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE LA
CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA PHASE 6,
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.MCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006585, 36-006586,
36-006587, 36-006588, 36-006589
NADB-R - 1062064;
Voided - 90-1.11
SB-02096 1990 PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS: HISTORIC
DOCUMENTATION AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST EXCAVATIONS
OF SITES WITHIN THE LA
CUESTA/SIERRA LAKES TREE
RELOCATION PROJECT AREA, FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585,
36-006586, 36-006588, 36-006589
NADB-R - 1062096;
Voided - 90-4.9
SB-02621 1992 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN
THE NORTH FONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE
AREA, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES
ALEXANDROWICZ, J.
STEVEN, ANNE Q.
DUFFIELD-STOLL,
JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA, SUSAN R.
ALEXANDROWICZ,
ARTHUR A. KUHNER,
and ERIC SCOTT
36-004296, 36-006110, 36-006111,
36-006251, 36-006583, 36-006584,
36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587,
36-006588, 36-006589, 36-006807,
36-006808, 36-006809, 36-006810,
36-006811, 36-006812, 36-006813,
36-006814, 36-006815, 36-006816
NADB-R - 1062621;
Voided - 92-2.20A-B
Page 1 of 3 SBAIC 11/15/2021 2:00:22 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-03049 1995 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
REPORT: HISTORIC STRUCTURE
REMAINS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF CITRUS & SUMMIT
AVENUES, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO,
CA
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A., TAMARA L. FARRIS,
and RICHARD S.
SHEPARD
NADB-R - 1063049
SB-03527 2000 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVENTORY OF THE FONTANA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE #4 IN THE CITY
OF FONTANA. 20PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1063527
SB-03957 2004 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF
FONTANA PARK PROJECT, APN: 0226-092-
60, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CA. 23PP
STATISTICAL RESEARCHBECKER, KENNETH M.
and ANNE Q. STOLL
36-020148NADB-R - 1063957
SB-04020 1996 HISTORIC DOCUMENTATION &
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST EXCAVATIONS
OF HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
WITHIN THE SIERRA LAKES TREE
LOCATION PROJECT AREA, FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 596PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585,
36-006586, 36-006587, 36-006588,
36-006589
NADB-R - 1064020
SB-04021 1999 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL
RECORDATION OF THE SUMMIT AVE.
RESERVOIR LOCATED WITHIN
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH RANGE 5 WEST
SECTION 30, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 15PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006589NADB-R - 1064021
SB-04022 1999 REPORT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING ACTIVITIES AT THE SIERRA
LAKES PROJECT SITE, CITY OF
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 129PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006583, 36-006584, 36-006585,
36-006586, 36-006587, 36-006588,
36-006589
NADB-R - 1064022
SB-04209 2004 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION OF THE FONTANA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #33 PROJECT
AREA IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA 40PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1064209
Page 2 of 3 SBAIC 11/15/2021 2:00:22 PM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-05088 2005 A PHASE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION OF THE FONTANA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE
SCHOOL NO. 10, LOCATED IN THE CITY
OF FONTANA, SNA BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA, JENNETTENADB-R - 1065088
SB-05089 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of
210 Acres for the Proposed Citrus Heights
North Specific Plan in the City of Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California.
Perry, Richard M.NADB-R - 1065089
SB-06986 2010 Phase I Resources Assessment Report for
the Falcon Ridge Substation Project in the
Cities of Fontana and Rialto, San Bernardino
County, California.
CogstoneGlover, Amy and Sherri
Gust
NADB-R - 1066986
SB-07375 2012 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site
Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate
IE24363-B (SCE Tower), 5458 Citrus
Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino County,
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H. and
Sarah A. Williams
NADB-R - 1067375
SB-07990 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for
the Etiwanda Pipeline North Relining Project,
Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga,
San Bernardino County, California
Applied Earth Works, Inc.George, Joan and Josh
Smallwood
36-002910, 36-006901, 36-015497,
36-016454, 36-020137, 36-024086
Page 3 of 3 SBAIC 11/15/2021 2:00:23 PM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-36-006587 CA-SBR-006587H P1072-31-H SB-02064, SB-
02621, SB-04020,
SB-04022
AH02 1990 (McKenna)
P-36-006588 CA-SBR-006588H P1072-32-H SB-01611, SB-
02064, SB-02096,
SB-02621, SB-
04020, SB-04022
AH02 1990 (McKenna)
P-36-015376 Resource Name - Grapeland
Homesteads & Water Works;
PHI - SBR-116
SB-04012, SB-05691Building,
Structure,
Other
Historic HP22; HP29; HP30;
HP33; HP39
1987 (Anicic, John, Fontana
Historical Society);
1989;
2016
Page 1 of 1 SBAIC 11/15/2021 2:00:05 PM
Resources highlighted in green have been previously verified by SCCIC staff.
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
APPENDIX B
NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 2
October 5, 2021
Johnny Defachelle
BCR Consulting LLC
Via Email to: johnny.defachelle@gmail.com
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public
Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09,
21084.2 and 21084.3, Citrus West Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Defachelle:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed
project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or
mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public
agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to
consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies
of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a
public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated
California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by
means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed
project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the
California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for
notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation
as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural
resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their
notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been
completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-Stenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER [Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691 (916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Page 2 of 2
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the
APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the
Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural
resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded
cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure
in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission
was positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the attached list for more
information.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative
response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only
source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having
the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your
assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
admin@gabrielenoindians.org
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
GTTribalcouncil@aol.com
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
gtongva@gmail.com
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
christina.marsden@alumni.usc.ed
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
roadkingcharles@aol.com
Gabrielino
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Citrus West Project, San
Bernardino County.
PROJ-2021-
004993
10/05/2021 10:01 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Bernardino County
10/5/2021
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
serranonation1@gmail.com
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
serranonation1@gmail.com
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Citrus West Project, San
Bernardino County.
PROJ-2021-
004993
10/05/2021 10:01 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Bernardino County
10/5/2021
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
APPENDIX C
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org
BCR Consulting LLC September 27, 2021
Johnny Defachelle
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Defachelle,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Citrus East Project in the city
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project site is located at the intersection of
Summit Avenue and Citrus Avenue in Township 1 North, Range 5 West in Section 19 on the
Devore, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating to
the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of
high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively
modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial
depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial
sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the
project area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the Citrus East
Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene
periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the
development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during
development should be observed.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at
dradford@westerncentermuseum.org
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
APPENDIX D
PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
Photo 1: Project Site Overview (View NE)
Photo 2: Project Site Overview (View NW)
N O V E M B E R 29 , 2 0 2 1 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T C I T R U S W E S T P R O J E C T
Photo 3: Project Site Overview (View SW)
Photo 4: Project Site Overview (View E)
APPENDIX C2
RESULTS OF A CULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES DUE DILIGENCE STUDY
March 4, 2021
Randy Schroeder
Lennar Homes of CA, Inc.
Inland Empire Division
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 302
Corona, California 92879
Subject: Results of a Cultural and Biological Resources Due Diligence Study for the Fontana
Citrus and Summit East/West Property Project, APNs 110-726-237 and 023-914-
130, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a due diligence cultural and
biological resources review of the proposed Fontana Citrus and Summit East/West Property
Project (Citrus and Summit Project) which includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 110-726-
237 and 023-914-130. This project consists of a proposed residential subdivision of 18 acres on
two separate parcels and associated off-site improvements. The subject property is located
northwest and northeast of the intersection of Summit and Citrus avenues, within the city of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The west parcel (APN 110-726-237) can be found
within Section 24, Township 1 North, Range 6 West and the east parcel (APN 023-914-130) can
be found within Section 19, Township 1 North, Ranch 5 West as shown on the U.S. Geological
Survey Devore, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. This due diligence study
focused upon the potential of the property to contain significant archaeological, historical,
paleontological, and/or biological resources that could represent a constraint to its development.
The scope of work for this assessment included:
1) A review of existing records regarding recorded archaeological sites and fossil
localities within and adjacent to the property;
2) A review of previous cultural resources studies for the project;
3) A Sacred Lands File review conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC);
4) An intuitive survey of the property to search for any significant cultural resources;
5) A biological assessment for this project;
6) A biological heritage tree survey; and
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 2
7) Preparation of this letter report to summarize the results of the study and present an
opinion regarding the potential constraints associated with cultural and biological
resources during the development of the project.
Cultural Resources
The assessment of the potential constraints associated with archaeological or
paleontological resources within the Citrus and Summit Project are presented in four categories:
research of existing records, assessment of property conditions, review of current conditions, and
recommendations. Fortunately for this study, a sufficient quantity of data is available to permit a
strong assessment of the property’s potential to contain significant archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Review of Available Archaeological Records Data
BFSA requested an archaeological records search from the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at the California State University at Fullerton (CSUF) on February
17, 2021. However, due to the limitations imposed by the evolving circumstances related to the
COVID-19 pandemic, records search access has become limited and, to date, the records search
has not yet been completed by the SCCIC. However, given the high frequency of development in
the area, it is likely that much of the area surrounding the project has been studied.
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
BFSA requested a Sacred Lands File search to be conducted by the NAHC for the project
on February 19, 2021 to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of
religious or ceremonial importance are present within or near the project. The Sacred Lands File
search results were positive for sacred sites within the vicinity of the project. The NAHC also
supplied a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in
the area and specifically recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation. The positive results are an indication of the level of involvement that can be anticipated
from local Native American tribes during the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 government-to-government
tribal consultation process. At minimum, it can be anticipated that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation will request to monitor any project related ground disturbances.
Results of the Archaeological Field Survey
On February 19, 2021, BFSA archaeologist Michael Tyberg conducted an intuitive survey
to determine if any locations of historic or prehistoric resources or potential use areas were present.
Both parcels are primarily characterized as relatively flat terrain that slope gradually to the south.
During the survey of APN 023-914-130, visibility of the natural ground surface was characterized
as very poor due to dense, low-lying grasses. California pepper and other ornamental trees were
also identified in the southwest quadrant of the east parcel. Within APN 110-726-237, visibility
was moderate to good, and vegetation was limited to patches of low-lying grasses. No trees were
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 3
located within the west parcel.
Historic aerial photographs indicate that APN 110-726-237 remained vacant and unaltered
through 1980. By 1994, the native vegetation appears to have been removed and by 2002, the
entire property was graded. The aerial photographs indicate that no structures were ever located
on the west parcel and that it was highly disturbed when the vegetation was cleared between 1980
and 1994 and when the property was graded between 1994 and 2002. The survey conducted by
BFSA of APN 110-726-237 did not reveal the presence of any archaeological sites, artifacts, or
other potential cultural resources.
Aerial photographs of APN 023-914-130 indicate that it was developed as early as 1938.
The 1938 aerial photograph shows a main residence and two outbuildings with landscaping in the
west half of the parcel, in the vicinity of the pepper trees, and agricultural fields surrounding the
structures to the north and east. A rock wall is located on the northeast half of the property,
separating the easternmost agricultural field from the property to the north. By 1959, one of the
outbuildings was replaced with a larger structure and the main residence was either expanded or
replaced with a larger residence. By 1980, the remaining outbuildings had been removed, and
between 1994 and 2002, the main residence was also removed from the property.
The survey conducted by BFSA of APN 023-914-130 located foundations and remnants of
stone and mortar walls of three structures in the west half of the property, along with the rock wall
seen on the 1938 aerial photograph located in the northeast portion of the property. It is unclear if
the foundations and structure remnants correlate with the structures on the 1938 aerial photograph
or the larger structures seen on the 1959 aerial photograph. Regardless, the foundation and
structure remnants and the rock wall are considered historic features according the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as they meet the 45-year threshold for the area.
One potential historic farm site was identified within the east parcel, APN 023-914-130, of
the Citrus and Summit Project. The west parcel, APN 110-726-237, was negative for
archaeological sites, artifacts, or other potential cultural resources. Both parcels, however, were
highly disturbed by grading and demolition between 1994 and 2002. Additional disturbances
likely occurred during construction of the neighboring housing developments throughout the 2000s
to 2010s. Because the SCCIC records search results have not yet been returned, it is unknown if
the farm site has already been evaluated and recorded, or if there are other previously recorded
sites located within the Citrus and Summit Project.
Results of the Paleontological Assessment
The Citrus and Summit Project is underlain by late Quaternary (Holocene) young alluvial
fan deposits consisting of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, coarse-grained sand to
bouldery alluvial-fan deposits having slightly to moderately dissected surfaces. Alluvial fan
deposits typically have high coarse-to-fine clast ratios. Younger surficial units have upper surfaces
that are capped by slight to moderately developed pedogenic soil profiles (Morton and Matti 2001).
Young alluvial fan deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least
in the uppermost layers, but they may contain pockets of finer-grained sediments, particularly at
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 4
depth, that may well contain significant vertebrate fossil remains. The fossilized remains that
might be expected would be the bones of late Pleistocene-age mammals such as horses, camels, or
mammoths, or small vertebrates such as reptiles and rodents.
While shallow excavations in the young alluvial fan deposits are unlikely to encounter
significant vertebrate fossils, deeper excavations within the project area that extend down into
older, finer-grained Quaternary deposits may encounter significant remains of fossil vertebrates.
Any substantial excavations in the proposed project, therefore, should be monitored to recover any
fossil remains while not impeding development. A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan is
warranted to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level below significant.
Biological Resources
Review of Available Biological Resources Records Data
Existing biological resource conditions within and adjacent to the Citrus and Summit
Project were initially investigated through review of pertinent scientific literature. Federal register
listings, protocols, and species data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) were reviewed in conjunction with anticipated federally listed species potentially
occurring in the area of the subject property. The California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB), a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Heritage Division
species account database, was also reviewed for all pertinent information regarding the locations
of known occurrences of sensitive species in the vicinity of the properties (CDFW 2021a). In
addition, numerous regional floral and faunal field guides were utilized in the identification of
species and suitable habitats. Combined, the sources reviewed provided an excellent baseline from
which to assess the biological resources potentially occurring in the area. Other sources of
information included the review of unpublished biological resource letter reports, jurisdictional
delineations, permit applications and assessments. Other CDFW reports and publications
consulted include the following:
• Special Animals (CDFW 2021b)
• State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW
2021c)
• Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2021d)
• Special Vascular Plants and Bryophytes List (CDFW 2021e)
A reconnaissance survey of the project was conducted by Ruben Ramirez, Cadre
Environmental, on February 16, 2021 (USFWS Permit 780566-14, CDFW Permit 02243) in order
to characterize and identify potential wildlife habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data
identified in the literature search and previous surveys. Geologic and soil maps were examined to
identify local soil types that may support sensitive taxa. Aerial photographs, topographic maps,
and vegetation and rare plant maps prepared by previous studies in the region were used to
determine community types and other physical features that may support sensitive plants/wildlife,
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 5
uncommon taxa, or rare communities that occur within the project.
Based upon the initial review of the USFWS and CNDDB databases, habitat assessments
were conducted for the following species:
• Sensitive plants
• Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) – Federally
Threatened / California State Species of Special Concern
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – California State Species of Special Concern
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) – Federally Endangered /
California State Species of Special Concern
• Protected (“Heritage”) trees (as defined in City of Fontana Municipal Code Ordinance
No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94)
Results of the Field Survey
The project is bordered and bisected completely by high-density existing and under
construction residential development and high traffic roads. Vegetation within the project is
characterized as buckwheat scrub, ornamental, and disturbed/ruderal vegetation. Based upon a
review of historic aerial photographs, the project parcels have been cleared and grubbed
consistently since at least 2002, which is consistent with conditions documented on site during the
current survey.
Habitat on the project is characterized primarily as disturbed/ruderal vegetation and is
dominated by cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium),
tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Asian mustard (Brassica
tournefortii), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus) Russian thistle (Kali tragus), horseweed (Conyza
canadensis), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca
grandiflora), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus).
Buckwheat scrub vegetation is located in the northwestern portion of APN 110-726-237
and is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and deerweed (Acmispon
glaber). A few chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and single hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia)
are reestablishing in this region.
Several ornamental trees persist from a previous development within APN 023-914-130,
including European olive (Olea europaea), California pepper (Schinus molle), salt cedar (Tamarix
ramosissima), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).
The entire project is characterized as having Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent
slopes (SoC) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2021).
Results of the Biological Assessment
The Citrus and Summit Project is not located within or adjacent to the North Fontana
Conservation Program area (Michael Baker International 2016). Therefore, implementation of the
project would not result in a conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan,
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 6
no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
1. Sensitive Habitats: No sensitive or undisturbed habitats were documented within or
adjacent to the project. No proposed actions are needed.
2. Sensitive Plants: No suitable habitat for sensitive floral species, including those listed
as federal or state threatened/endangered, was documented within or adjacent to the
project. Based upon a review of historic aerial photographs, the project has been
cleared and grubbed consistently since at least 2002, consistent with conditions
documented on site during the survey.
Because the ornamental trees located within APN 023-914-130 may be regulated by
the City of Fontana’s Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance, a certified arborist, Jim
Borer (Certified Arborist #496), conducted a tree inspection survey of APN 023-914-
130 on February 27, 2021. At the time of the survey, tree species noted within APN
023-914-130 consisted of European olive (Olea europaea), California pepper (Schinus
molle), salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).
None of the tree species on the property are included as significant species within the
City of Fontana’s Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance, nor are they subject to
protection of any state, federal, or local agencies. Furthermore, no eucalyptus trees are
located on the property, and none of the individual trees “compromise any sort or
legacy windrow planting” (Borer 2021). Although there are a few olive trees on site,
they do not appear to have been cultivated as components of an orchard, and instead
appear to be volunteers “based upon their lack of mature form or character” (Borer
2021). Ultimately,
… none of the existing trees are of varietal, individually outstanding
archetypical form or character, or cultural significance otherwise. The
lack of care and maintenance that they have experienced in the high
wind environment of north Fontana has not affected their systemic vigor
(foliage canopy density, coloration, or volumes) but has affected their
statures and their structural integrity.
Therein the existing tree species structural integrity are marginal which
diminishes their conservation potentials regardless of their species. The
City’s ordinance requires only that “outstanding” insignificant tree
species specimens should be considered for conservation. (Borer 2021)
Because none of the ornamental trees within APN 023-914-130, or any tree within the
subject property as a whole, are subject to conservation, a tree removal permit should
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 7
not be required for the project. No proposed actions are needed.
3. Sensitive Wildlife: No suitable habitat for wildlife species listed as federal or state
threatened/endangered was documented within or adjacent to the project. Based upon
a review of historic aerial photographs, the project has been cleared and grubbed
consistently since at least 2002, consistent with conditions documented on site during
the survey.
The project is located within the County of San Bernardino Biotic Resources Overlay
Map (2012) for the burrowing owl and suitable foraging and refugia habitat was
documented on site. All potential burrows were assessed during the site visit and no
characteristic sign, including white-wash, feathers, tracks, or pellets, was detected.
Proposed actions include:
a. Prior to initial grading or clearing of areas of suitable habitat (e.g., a vacant site
with a landscape of grassland or low-growing, arid scrub vegetation or
agricultural use or vegetation), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-
construction survey, in accordance with the 2012 California Department of Fish
and Game (now CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, to
determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls within the proposed area
of impact. Specifically, two pre-construction clearance surveys should be
conducted 14 to 30 days and 24 hours, respectively, prior to any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities. Documentation of findings shall be
submitted to the City of Fontana for review and approval. If no burrowing owls
or occupied burrows are detected, construction may begin. If an occupied
burrow is found within the development footprint during pre-construction
clearance surveys, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan would need
to be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiating project
activities.
4. USFWS Critical Habitat: The project is not located within or adjacent to a designated
plant or wildlife critical habitat boundary. No proposed actions are needed.
5. California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513:
The ornamental trees, buckwheat scrub, and disturbed/ruderal habitats documented
within the project are expected to potentially provide nesting habitat for common birds
protected by California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and
3513. The loss of an active nest would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Standard required compliance with the CDFW Codes will ensure potential impacts to
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 8
nesting birds are reduced to a level below significant.
Proposed actions include:
a. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the California Department
of Fish and Game Code Codes 3503 & 3513 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
clearing should occur between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for birds
(generally, September 1 to January 31). If this avoidance schedule is not
feasible, the alternative is to carry out such activities under the supervision of a
qualified biologist. This shall entail the following:
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird
survey no more than 45 days prior to initiating ground disturbance
activities. The survey will consist of full coverage of the proposed
disturbance limits and up to a 500-foot buffer area, determined by the
biologist and taking into account the species nesting in the area and the
habitat present.
If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.
2. If “occupied” nests are found, their locations shall be mapped, species
documented, and, to the degree feasible, the status of the nest (e.g.,
incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging) recorded. The
biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest.
The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species
present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities
proposed in the area. No construction or ground disturbance activities
shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined
the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor
that activities may resume.
6. Jurisdictional Wetland & Regulated Resources: No wetlands or jurisdictional
resources regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, or Regional
Water Quality Control Board were documented within or immediately adjacent to the
project. No proposed actions are needed.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 9
Conclusion
The review of current property conditions and historic aerial imagery has provided
sufficient information to form an opinion regarding the cultural and paleontological constraints, as
well as the likely biological and regulatory constraints to the development of the property. The
following points are salient to the evaluation of potential constraints:
• Historic aerial photographs indicated that APN 023-914-130 was developed as early as
1938, and APN 110-726-237 has disturbed by clearing and grubbing after 1980 and the
parcel was completely graded by 2002.
• The survey of the project identified one potential historic farm site on APN 023-914-
130. APN 110-726-237 was negative for the presence of cultural resources. No
prehistoric Native American sites were observed on either parcel.
• The paleontological assessment indicates that the property has the potential to contain
fossils, although the potential increases with depth of soil.
• Specific biological constraints and recommendations are represented by the need to
conduct preconstruction burrowing owl and nesting bird surveys. The ornamental trees
present on site do not qualify for protection under the City of Fontana’s Heritage Tree
Preservation Ordinance and can be removed without obtaining a tree removal permit.
Because the archaeological records search results have not yet been received from the
SCCIC, it is unclear if the possible historic farm site and associated features have been previously
recorded and evaluated. In the event that the farm site has not been previously studied, these
features would need to be evaluated through a significance evaluation and testing program prior
to grading, as part of the environmental CEQA review process. This would include the careful
recordation of the historic features and a series of shovel tests around each feature to determine
the presence of buried cultural materials, followed by a research and reporting program as well as
the recordation of the farm site on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site record form.
If the records search indicates that the site has already been recorded, a DPR site record form
update would need to be completed. Given the state of the structures and rock wall, and the high
level of disturbance to APN 023-914-130, it is unlikely that the significance evaluation and testing
program would find these historic features to be significant. The historic features do not represent
a significant constraint to the development of this property.
Native American issues are anticipated to be relatively minor for this project, given the
absence of any archaeological sites on the two parcels. Local tribes, particularly the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, will likely request Native American monitoring to protect
any sensitive tribal resources that may be present. This situation is very common in this area and
the only constraint to the development of the property is associated with Native American tribes
would be the cost of Native American monitoring during grading.
Following the significance evaluation and testing program, a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) that addresses both archaeological and paleontological resources will
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 10
likely be required during all grading activities by the City of Fontana. Generally, this requires the
presence of a full-time archaeological and/or paleontological monitor during all grading activities.
If cultural or paleontological resources are identified during grading, work would stop in the
vicinity of the find until the material can be assess and recorded by the archaeologist or
paleontologist. If the find is prehistoric in nature, a Native American representative would also be
called to assess the find. It is also possible that the City of Fontana will require the presence of a
Native American monitor(s) during all grading activities. Following the completion of grading, a
reporting program would be completed to address the presence or absence of cultural materials
within the Citrus and Summit Project. The requirement for a mitigation monitoring program by
the City as part of a grading permit is not considered a significant constraint to development plans.
Costs associated with mitigation monitoring are anticipated to be typical for such projects.
Biological constraints could be a minor financial consideration but also do not appear to
be a major constraint to development. The project requires standard preconstruction surveys for
burrowing owls and nesting birds. No critical habitat or sensitive plant or wildlife species were
identified within the project, and the existing trees on site are not eligible for protection under the
City of Fontana’s Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance.
It would appear that the only constraint to development is associated with the costs for
biological preconstruction surveys and cultural resources monitoring. The financial or cost
constraints for those tasks would likely fall in the range of $5,000 for biology and $30,000 for
archaeological and paleontological monitoring. Native American tribal monitoring would likely
have an ultimate cost of $25,000, assuming that only one tribe requests to participate in the
monitoring of grading. In the unlikely event that burrowing owls are identified on the property
prior to grading, additional costs could be added to the project to protect or relocate the owls.
If you have any questions or wish further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Brian F. Smith
BFS:jc
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 11
References
Borer, Jim
2021 On-Site Tree Inspection Follow-up Report, February 2021, Untitled Map, c/o Summit
and Citrus, Fontana, CA. Report on file at the offices of Brian F. Smith and Associates,
Inc., Poway, California.
California Department of Fish and Game
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources
Agency. Electronic document, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/
BUOWStaffReport.pdf, accessed March 1, 2021.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2021a California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Sensitive Element Record Search
for the Devore Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento,
California.
2021b Special Animals. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.
2021c State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Natural
Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.
2021d Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Heritage Division,
Natural Diversity Data Base.
2021e Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens. Natural Heritage Division, Natural
Diversity Data Base.
County of San Bernardino
2012 Biotic Resources Overlay Map. Electronic document, http://www.sbcounty.gov/
Uploads/lus/BioMaps/cnty_all_biotic_resources_map_final.pdf, accessed March 3, 2021.
Michael Baker International
2016 Action Plan for Implementing the North Fontana Conservation Program. On file at the
City of Fontana, Fontana, California.
Morton, D.M. and J.C. Matti
2001 Geology of the 7.5-minute Devore quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California,
U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 01-173