HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix E - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE
SLOVER AND CYPRESS AVENUE PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and
251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25
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
January 27, 2022
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Jillian LH. Conroy, Jennifer R.K. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith
Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 679-8218
Client/Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
Report Date: January 27, 2022
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue
Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
(APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11,
-12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25)
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Structure
Evaluation
Updated Site: None
New Sites: Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue), Temp-2 (10367 Oleander
Avenue), Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10475
Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue), Temp-6
(16321 Boyle Avenue), Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue), and
Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue)
USGS Quadrangle: Fontana, California (7.5 minute)
Acreage: 29.82 acres
Key Words: Survey; historic buildings at 10349, 10367, 10375, and 10475
Oleander Avenue recorded as Temp-1 to Temp-4 and historic
buildings at 16310, 16321, 16326, and 16398 Boyle Avenue
recorded as Temp-5 to Temp-8; monitoring of grading is
recommended; historic buildings not significant and preservation
not recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ....................................................................... vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives ................................................1.0–5
1.3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................1.0–6
1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ........................................1.0–17
1.4 Applicable Regulations .....................................................................................1.0–19
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................1.0–19
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Methods.............................................................................................................3.0–1
3.1.1 Archival Research ....................................................................................3.0–1
3.1.2 Survey Methods ........................................................................................3.0–1
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment .................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey ...............................................................................3.0–2
3.3 Historic Structure Analysis ...............................................................................3.0–2
3.3.1 History of the Project Area ......................................................................3.0–7
3.3.2 Property Ownership History ....................................................................3.0–22
3.3.3 Description of Surveyed Resources .........................................................3.0–41
3.3.4 Significance Evaluations ..........................................................................3.0–76
3.4 Discussion/Summary ........................................................................................3.0–104
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 Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Site Record Forms*
Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
Appendix E – Historic Maps
* Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map ...................................................................................1.0–2
Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3
Figure 1.1–3 Site Plan .........................................................................................................1.0–4
Figure 3.2–1 Cultural Resource Location Map ...................................................................3.0–5
Figure 3.3–1 Historic Structure Location Map ...................................................................3.0–6
Figure 3.3–2 1891 Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company Subdivision Map ..................3.0–9
Figure 3.3–3 1929 to 1933 Lot Book Map Detail ...............................................................3.0–11
Figure 3.3–4 1948 to 1951 Lot Book Map Detail ...............................................................3.0–14
Figure 3.3–5 1955 to 1961 Update to the 1951 Assessor’s Parcel Map .............................3.0–17
Figure 3.3–6 1969 to 1975 Update to the 1951 Assessor’s Parcel Map .............................3.0–19
Figure 3.3–7 Current Assessor’s Parcel Map .....................................................................3.0–21
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the northeast area of the project, facing north ............................3.0–3
Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the southern portion of the project, facing west ..........................3.0–3
Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the northern portion of the project, facing northeast ..................3.0–4
Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the central portion of the project, facing west ............................3.0–4
Plate 3.3–1 Andrew Jackson Pope ......................................................................................3.0–7
Plate 3.3–2 1933 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–24
Plate 3.3–3 1938 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–25
Plate 3.3–4 Betty Lou McCall ............................................................................................3.0–26
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–5 1953 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–28
Plate 3.3–6 Harry DeWeese ................................................................................................3.0–27
Plate 3.3–7 Advertisement to rent 10367 Oleander Avenue ...............................................3.0–29
Plate 3.3–8 Jesse Weirich (male in chair) and Florence Wilson (female in chair) circa
1910 ..................................................................................................................3.0–30
Plate 3.3–9 1966 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–31
Plate 3.3–10 Beulah McCoy ...............................................................................................3.0–34
Plate 3.3–11 1962 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–35
Plate 3.3–12 1977 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–36
Plate 3.3–13 1985 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–37
Plate 3.3–14 Charles and Frances Zaffuto and their children .............................................3.0–38
Plate 3.3–15 Clara Lulu Cannon circa 1884 .......................................................................3.0–40
Plate 3.3–16 West Façade of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–42
Plate 3.3–17 North Façade (Left) of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing
Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–43
Plate 3.3–18 South Façade (Right) of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing
Northeast .......................................................................................................3.0–44
Plate 3.3–19 Overview of the 1938 to 1953 Additions to the East Façade (Left) of the
10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing South ..........................................3.0–45
Plate 3.3–20 North Façade of the Manufactured Home on the 10349 Oleander Avenue
Property, Facing South ..................................................................................3.0–46
Plate 3.3–21 Overview of the Post-1985 Detached Garage on the 10349 Oleander
Avenue Property, Facing Northeast ..............................................................3.0–47
Plate 3.3–22 West Façade of the 10367 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–49
Plate 3.3–23 Northwest Corner of the 10367 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing
Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–50
Plate 3.3–24 North Façade of the 10375 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing South .........3.0–51
Plate 3.3–25 West Façade of the 10375 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–52
Plate 3.3–26 West Façade of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–54
Plate 3.3–27 West Façade of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing Northeast ....3.0–55
Plate 3.3–28 Northwest Corner of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing
Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–56
Plate 3.3–29 South Façade of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing North .........3.0–57
Plate 3.3–30 West Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Northeast .........3.0–58
Plate 3.3–31 East Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Northwest ..........3.0–59
Plate 3.3–32 South Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing North ..............3.0–60
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–33 West Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .........3.0–61
Plate 3.3–34 West Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .........3.0–62
Plate 3.3–35 North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southwest .......3.0–63
Plate 3.3–36 1959 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–64
Plate 3.3–37 2008 View of the North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building,
Facing South ..................................................................................................3.0–65
Plate 3.3–38 2012 View of the North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building,
Facing South ..................................................................................................3.0–66
Plate 3.3–39 2007 View of the North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building,
Facing South ..................................................................................................3.0–67
Plate 3.3–40 North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Detached Garage, Facing
Southwest ......................................................................................................3.0–69
Plate 3.3–41 2006 View of the West (Left) and South (Right) Façades of the 1930
Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing Northeast ..................................3.0–70
Plate 3.3–42 2007 View of the South Façade of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle
Avenue, Facing North ...................................................................................3.0–71
Plate 3.3–43 West Façade (Left) of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing
Northeast .......................................................................................................3.0–72
Plate 3.3–44 West Façade of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing
Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–73
Plate 3.3–45 West Façade of the 1962 to 1966 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue,
Facing East ....................................................................................................3.0–74
Plate 3.3–46 Southeast Corner of the 1977 to 1985 Manufactured Home at 16326 Boyle
Avenue, Facing Northwest ............................................................................3.0–75
Plate 3.3–47 2007 View of the South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building,
Facing North ..................................................................................................3.0–77
Plate 3.3–48 2012 View of the South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building,
Facing North ..................................................................................................3.0–78
Plate 3.3–49 2018 View of the South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building,
Facing North ..................................................................................................3.0–79
Plate 3.3–50 East Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing West ..................3.0–80
Plate 3.3–51 North Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southwest .......3.0–81
Plate 3.3–52 West Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing East ..................3.0–82
Plate 3.3–53 South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Northeast ........3.0–83
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.3–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the Slover and Cypress
Avenue Project ................................................................................................1.0–17
Table 3.3–1 Historic Properties Recorded Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue
Project .............................................................................................................3.0–2
Table 3.3–2 1926 to 1932 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–10
Table 3.3–3 1934 to 1950 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–12
Table 3.3–4 1951 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project With
Assigned APNs ...............................................................................................3.0–15
Table 3.3–5 1957 to 1961 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–16
Table 3.3–6 1962 to 1975 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–18
Table 3.3–7 2021 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project ....................3.0–20
Table 3.3–8 Sites Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project by Parcel .....................3.0–22
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a requirement by the City of Fontana, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
(BFSA) conducted a cultural resources survey of the 29.82-acre Slover and Cypress Avenue
Project. This project is located south of Interstate 10, north of Slover Avenue, east of Oleander
Avenue, and west of Cypress Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
(Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -
11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25). On the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-
scale Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map, the project is situated within Section 19,
Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The proposed project
consists of the construction of an industrial warehouse building with associated parking and
infrastructure.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present
within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Fontana’s
environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The archaeological investigation of the project included the review of an
archaeological records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological
studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries or
in the immediate vicinity. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) review by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). A review of the records searches indicate that the
property does not include any previously recorded archaeological sites, sacred sites, or Tribal
Cultural Resources within the subject property.
The archaeological survey, which was conducted on October 22, 2021, was completed in
order to determine if cultural resources exist within the property and if the project represents a
potential adverse impact to cultural resources. The survey resulted in the identification of eight
historic resources:
• Temp-1: Historic single-family residence (10349 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-163-05)
• Temp-2: Historic single-family residence (10367 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-163-04)
• Temp-3: Historic single-family residence (10375 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-163-03)
• Temp-4: Historic single-family residence (10475 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-164-12)
• Temp-5: Historic single-family residence (16310 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-163-02)
• Temp-6: Historic single-family residence (16321 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-164-16)
• Temp-7: Two historic single-family residences and one non-historic manufactured
home (16326 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-163-01)
• Temp-8: Historic single-family residence (16398 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-163-08)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
viii
According to the proposed development plan, the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project will impact
all eight identified cultural resource sites. Based upon the results of the field survey and records
searches, from the perspective of the CEQA review of the proposed development, sites Temp-1 to
Temp-8 have been evaluated as not significant. While the buildings are historic in age, they were
not designed by an architect of importance, they do not possess any architecturally important
elements, and the owners were not historically significant to the community. Based upon the
conclusions reached during the current evaluation, no mitigation measures are recommended for
the nine historic buildings at Temp-1 to Temp-8. No impacts to significant resources are associated
with the proposed development of the property.
Although the historic buildings were evaluated as not CEQA-significant, the potential
exists that unidentified significant historic deposits may be present that are related to the
occupation of this location since the 1920s. Because of this potential to encounter buried cultural
deposits, monitoring of grading by a qualified archaeologist is recommended. As no Native
American prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the property, Native American
monitoring would not be required during grading unless and until a discovery of a prehistoric site
or deposit occurs, at which time a Native American monitor should be incorporated into the
monitoring program. Should potentially significant cultural deposits be discovered, mitigation
measures will be implemented to reduce the effects of the grading impacts. A Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been provided in this report. As part of this
study, a copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project was
conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The
project is located south of Interstate 10, north of Slover Avenue, east of Oleander Avenue, and
west of Cypress Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1).
The property, which includes APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12,
-14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana, California
topographic quadrangle in Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian (Figure 1.1–2). The project proposes to grade the entire 29.82-acre property for the
construction of an industrial warehouse building with associated parking and infrastructure (Figure
1.1–3).
The project includes 10349 Oleander Avenue, 10367 Oleander Avenue, 10375 Oleander
Avenue, 10475 Oleander Avenue, 16310 Boyle Avenue, 16321 Boyle Avenue, 16326 Boyle
Avenue, and 16398 Boyle Avenue, which are currently developed with single-family residences
and associated hardscape and landscaping and have been recorded as Temp-1 to Temp-8 as part of
the current study.
The property was previously graded for the development of the parcels and ground
visibility during the surveys was limited by the buildings, pavement, and construction. The
decision to request this investigation was based upon the cultural resource sensitivity of the
locality, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural
resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which in this particular
case include the project’s proximity to Lytle Creek and the terrestrial ecosystems surrounding the
creek, which are part of an environmental setting that supported a significant prehistoric population
for over 10,000 years.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The Slover and Cypress Avenue Project is generally located in southwestern San
Bernardino County in the city of Fontana. The subject property is part of the Chino Basin, south
of the San Gabriel Mountains, north of the Jurupa Mountains, and west of the San Bernardino
Mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains extend east from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to
the Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges
with peaks exceeding 9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project is located near the
western margin and distal southern end of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan, which emanates from
the San Gabriel Mountains approximately nine to 10 miles north as a result of uplift and dissection
of the eastern mountains. The main source of these sediments is from the Lytle Creek drainage,
near where the northwest-southeast-trending San Andreas fault zone cuts across and separates the
San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges (Morton and Miller 2006).
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
Elevations at the project range from 1,073 to 1,102 feet AMSL and soils in and around the project
are mainly characterized as Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, which consist of very deep,
somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources (NRCS 2019).
No natural features that are often associated with prehistoric sites, such as bedrock outcrops or
natural sources of water, are visible on aerial photographs or maps of the project area.
Geomorphically, the project occupies the Fontana Plain (Dutcher and Garrett 1963) and
is relatively flat-lying, with a gentle slope to the south. Geologically, the project is mapped as
young alluvial fan deposits of Lytle Creek (Morton 2003) that are Holocene and late Pleistocene
in age, a period of time spanning up to approximately 120,000 years ago (Cohen and Gibbard
2011). Morton (2003) describes these deposits as unconsolidated, cobbly, and bouldery alluvium
composing the Lytle Creek alluvial fan. Dutcher and Garrett (1963) indicate that the young alluvial
fan deposits may exceed one hundred feet thick in some areas of the Fontana-San Bernardino-
Redlands region, but show that these deposits are approximately 15 feet thick for a broad area in
the Fontana Plain, about one to two miles northeast of the project (Wirths 2022).
During the prehistoric period, vegetation near the project provided sufficient food
resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project during
prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and
coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project
during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely
obtainable from Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek, and the Santa Ana River. Historically, the
property likely contained the same plant and animal species that are present today.
1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives
The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material
remains left behind. This is done by using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which
draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology allows one to look deeper
into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest via analysis of material
culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the
archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a
given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts
of a given culture upon this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment.
Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material
culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic”
perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the
participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hoping to attain
a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by
definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work.
As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding,
and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material
culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture
that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective.
As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and
juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.”
This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture.
However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of
choices and consequences influencing everything from technology, to religions, to institutions.
Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices,
changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address
both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the
archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014).
To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological
(etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the
ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected.
In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution
had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia
of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has
affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there
remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As
a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible.
1.3.1 Introduction
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
(Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer,
which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and
evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984;
Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the
particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west
than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains,
marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized
hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds,
mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss
and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP)
The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP.
The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general
warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In
southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by
cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at
8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one
to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the
coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines
were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely
discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and
estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea
levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).
At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons
filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters
1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes
surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the
lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects upon the types of resources available to
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
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 into the Late Prehistoric Period. This
period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political,
and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with
the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of
more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments
during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and
the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the
Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade
networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day
Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso
Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River,
the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of
the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including
Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island,
this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern
California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as
the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied
at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were
comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller
family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak
groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in
sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the
locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and
included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern
elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species,
purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland
resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare,
rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been
at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family;
2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established
lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were
politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain
seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to
exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion,
leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s)
under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was
legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between
the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting
healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and
collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of
powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other
groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore
deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact)
cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain,
yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment
or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other
tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell
flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and
wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were
fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets
were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial
items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina
Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual
objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino greatly profited from trading steatite
since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a;
Kroeber 1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death,
supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-
access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales
relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster-
transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and
Smith 1978b)
The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were
induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer,
using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family
dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take
place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole
roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband,
wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or
widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the
mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader
would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and
sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).
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
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used
to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to
a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food
acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or
bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either
stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general
periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American
Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into
additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to
1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these
phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for
archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western
peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents,
oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan
Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an
expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific
coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track,
Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names
have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from
use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”;
60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages
observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial,
long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged
from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey
(San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
(Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California
was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given
permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from
Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through
Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman
1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de
Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through
southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between
San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the
establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly
vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to
expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In
order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find
potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father
Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla,
at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley
received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father
Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino
County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente
(circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These
efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established
a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The
indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to
work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social
conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin
to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the
establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a
result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered
expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located
in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names
quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day
locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake
Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo
(Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments
within western Riverside County.
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native
Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources,
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook
1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war
(Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put
into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once
California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines,
business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969;
Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27
separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was
primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was
established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office
in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the
Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984).
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County,
including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their
ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto
Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing
provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the
promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its
first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental
Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx
brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area
became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates
founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho.
Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not
until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that
the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well
suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive
irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in
California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population
growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation
of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson
1971).
Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a
military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During
World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location
of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout
the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant
portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s,
Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more
than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents
(Patterson 1971).
General History of the City of Fontana
In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, cofounder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer
based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries,
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as part of the
Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other
properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including
almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and
settlers surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in which the
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). 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).
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers
of steel west of the Mississippi River. 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.
The steel operation was closed in the 1980s; however, the city has since become a transportation
hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic 2005; City of
Fontana 2018).
1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
The SCCIC records search results indicate that 40 resources have been recorded within one
mile of the project, none of which are located within the subject property (Table 1.3–1). All 40
resources are historic and include the Southern Pacific Railroad alignment, farm/ranch complexes,
single-family residences, commercial buildings, and the Kaiser Fontana Medical Center Campus.
Table 1.3–1
Archaeological Sites Recorded Within a
One-Mile Radius of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
Site(s) Description
SBR-10,330H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment
SBR-11,567H, P-36-013857,
and P-36-026971 Historic farm/ranch complex
SBR-29,056H Historic Gertrude Smith
residential building complex
P-36-013852, P-36-013856, P-36-013858,
P-36-013859, P-36-013860, P-36-013861,
P-36-013862, P-36-013863, P-36-013864,
P-36-026954, P-36-026955, P-36-026956,
P-36-026957, P-36-026958, P-36-026959,
P-36-026964, P-36-026965, P-36-026966,
P-36-026967, P-36-026968, P-36-026969,
P-36-026970, P-36-027105, P-36-027106,
P-36-027107, P-36-027108, P-36-027109,
P-36-027110, P-36-027111,
and P-36-033192
Historic single-family residence(s)
P-36-013853 Historic single-family residence
and commercial building
P-36-013854, P-36-013855,
and P-36-013865 Historic commercial building
P-36-014467 Historic Kaiser Fontana Medical Center Campus
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
The results of the records search data also indicate that 28 cultural resource studies have
been conducted within a one-mile radius of the subject property, none of which include any
portions of the project. The full records search results are provided in Appendix C.
The following historic sources were also reviewed:
• The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of
Eligibility
• The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD)
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records
• The USGS 1896, 1898, 1901, and 1954 15' San Bernardino and 1943, 1953, 1955,
1967, and 1969 7.5' Fontana topographic quadrangles
• Historic aerial photographs dating between 1933 and 2019
Although no resources have been formally recorded with the SCCIC within the subject property,
the BERD does list one historic address (16395 Boyle Avenue) within the subject property. The
address corresponds to a residence once located in the center of the project. The historic property
is listed on the BERD with a construction date of 1953 and was evaluated as ineligible for the
NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process, but was not evaluated for the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or local listing (6Y). However, based upon the results
of the current survey, this address and any associated structures have been demolished and are no
longer located within the subject property.
The BLM GLO records indicate that Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West was
granted to Andrew Pope on May 10, 1870 (BLM Serial Number CACAAA 084020). The historic
aerial photographs extending from 1933 to 2019 indicate that the subject property was originally
utilized for agriculture. Early historic USGS maps do not show any structures within the subject
property until the 1953 Fontana 7.5' topographic map. All subsequent maps show structures
within the project.
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. The search failed to indicate the
presence of Native American cultural resources on or near 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 and the lack of natural resources often associated with prehistoric sites. No
prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the project and these resources tend to be
situated farther south, closer to the bedrock-laden Jurupa Mountains. The records search and
literature review suggest that historic buildings and sites associated with the agricultural history of
the region are the most likely cultural resources to be encountered within the project. Based upon
the previously recorded surrounding resources and the historic aerial photographs, there is a
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
potential for historic resources to be located within the subject property.
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 Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–20
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of
the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section
5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially
impaired.
2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR; or
b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of
the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant; or,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the
guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–21
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and
site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains
unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant
effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect
upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared
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 Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–1
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which
humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in
the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under
investigation is in the city of Fontana in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The
scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the Slover and Cypress Avenue
Project included the survey of a 29.82-acre area and the assessment of nine historic structures.
Given the area involved, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study
options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential
impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories
regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance
of the identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must
take into consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address
regional research topics and issues.
Although survey programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available,
several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial
investigations of any observed cultural resources:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or
individual?
• Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined
from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site
function? What resources were exploited?
• How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted
in the area?
• How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for the
region?
For the historic structures located within the project, the potential for historic deposits is
considered remote, and therefore, the research process was focused upon the built environment
and those individuals associated with the ownership, design, and construction of the buildings
within the project footprint. Although historic structure evaluations are limited in terms of the
amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be
used to guide the initial investigations of any observed historic resources:
• Can the building be associated with any significant individuals or events?
• Is the building representative of a specific type, style, or method of construction?
• Is the building associated with any nearby structures? Does the building, when studied
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–2
with the nearby structures, qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district?
• Was the building designed or constructed by a significant architect, designer, builder,
or contractor?
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of
changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The
overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area
occupants. Further, the overall goal of the historic structure assessment is to understand the
construction and use of the buildings within their associated historic context. Therefore, adequate
information on site function, context, and chronology from both an archaeological and historic
perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken
with the following primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural and historic resources occurring within the project;
2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and
chronological placement of each cultural resource identified, and the type, style, and
method of construction for any buildings;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective;
4) To identify persons or events associated with any buildings and their construction; and
5) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural and historic resource
identified.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an
intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 29.82-acre project, and the detailed recordation of
all identified cultural resources. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Fontana
environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory
requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of
resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those
established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Archival Research
Records relating to the ownership and developmental history of this project were sought to
identify any associated historic persons, historic events, or architectural significance. Records
research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the SCCIC, the Fontana Historical Society,
the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County
Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public
Library. Ownership information and Lot Book pages also obtained. Appendix E contains maps
of the property, including historic USGS maps from 1896, 1943, 1955, and 1969, the 1891
subdivision map, the 1929 to 1934 and 1948 to 1951 Lot Book maps, and the 1962 to 1968 and
1976 to 1981 updates to the 1951 Assessor’s parcel map. No Sanborn maps are available as the
property is outside the Fontana coverage areas.
3.1.2 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard
archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the
project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey
transects set approximately 10 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, including
all potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located. Photographs documenting
survey discoveries and overall survey conditions were taken frequently. All cultural resources
were recorded as necessary according to the OHP’s manual, Instructions for Recording Historical
Resources, using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms.
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment
Methods for evaluating the integrity and significance of the historic buildings within APNs
251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25
included photographic documentation and review of available archival documents. During the
survey, photographs were taken of all building elevations. The photographs were used to complete
architectural descriptions of the buildings. The original core structures and all modifications made
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
to the buildings since their initial construction were also recorded. The current setting of the
buildings was compared to the historical setting of the property. This information was combined
with the archival research in 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
BFSA field archaeologist David Grabski conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on
October 22, 2021 under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian Smith. Ground visibility was
limited due to rubble from demolition of previous structures and current residential and industrial
development (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–4). The entire property appears to have been previously rough-
graded. As a result of the field survey, nine historic buildings have been identified within the
project. The buildings have been recorded as Temp-1 to Temp-8 with the SCCIC (Figure 3.2–1)
and were subsequently evaluated for significance as part of this study. No other cultural resources
were observed during the survey of the project.
3.3 Historic Structure Analysis
Within the boundaries of the subject property, 10 historic buildings have been identified
(Table 3.3–1 and Figure 3.3–1). DPR site forms were submitted to the SCCIC on January 27,
2022. Once processed, the SCCIC will assign the new resources permanent site numbers. The
following section provides the pertinent field results for the significance evaluation for the historic
buildings located within the project boundaries, which was conducted in accordance with City of
Fontana guidelines and site evaluation protocols.
Table 3.3–1
Historic Properties Recorded Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
APN Address Building Type Site Number Date
Constructed
251-163-05 10349 Oleander Avenue
Single-family
residence
Temp-1 1923
251-163-04 10367 Oleander Avenue Temp-2 1946
251-163-03 10375 Oleander Avenue Temp-3 1950
251-164-12 10475 Oleander Avenue Temp-4 1966
251-163-02 16310 Boyle Avenue Temp-5 1945
251-164-16 16321 Boyle Avenue Temp-6 1926
251-163-01 16326 Boyle Avenue
Single-family
residence Temp-7
1930
1962 to 1966
Manufactured home 1977 to 1985
251-163-08 16398 Boyle Avenue Single-family
residence Temp-8 1930
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–7
Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue) is a single-family residence constructed by an
unknown builder in 1923. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman architectural style
but was originally designed in an unknown style. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue) is a
Contemporary-style, single-family residence constructed by an unknown builder in 1946. Site
Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue) is a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family residence
constructed by an unknown builder in 1950. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue) is a Ranch-
style, single-residence constructed by an unknown builder in 1966. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle
Avenue) is a single-family residence likely constructed in the Transitional Ranch style by an
unknown builder in 1945. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue) is a single-family residence likely
constructed in the Craftsman style by an unknown builder in 1926. Site Temp-7 consists of three
buildings located at 16326 Boyle Avenue that were built between 1930 and 1985. The
manufactured home was built between 1977 and 1985 and is not historic. The two historic single-
family residences were constructed in an unknown style in 1930 and in a simple Ranch style
between 1962 and 1966, both by unknown builders. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue) is a
single-family residence constructed in 1930 in an unknown style by an unknown builder.
Descriptions and significance evaluations of the historic resources are provided below.
3.3.1 History of the Project Area
The first recorded owner of the properties
located within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
was Andrew Jackson Pope (Plate 3.3–1), cofounder of
the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer based
out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b;
University of Washington Libraries, Special
Collections 2018). In 1869, as part of the Land Act of
1820, Pope purchased 12,179 acres of land in San
Bernardino County, including 8,339 acres within
Sections 4 to 9, 15, 17, 18, 19 (the current project
area), 22, 29, and 30 of Township 1 South, Ranch 6
West, and 3,840 acres within Sections 22 to 27 of
Township 1 South, Range 6 West. “During the
ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot
acquired other properties in the West, chiefly in
California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire,
including almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World
Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights
conflicts between grant owners (himself) and settlers
surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the
Plate 3.3–1: Andrew Jackson Pope.
(Photograph courtesy
of the World Forestry Center 2017)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–8
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). The subject property was first shown on the
1891 Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company Subdivision Map as lots 739 and 742 (Figure 3.3–
2).
In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana
Development Company purchased Rosena and by 1905, had begun the building of a farming
complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a
company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982). By 1906, Miller
had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company assets and created
the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company. Afterward, Miller oversaw the
construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from Lytle Creek, as well as the planting
of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (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).
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–10
San Bernardino County Lot Books indicate that the Fontana Land Company owned lots
739 and 742, which include the entire project (Figure 3.3–3), from 1917 to 1921. Both lots were
transferred to Fontana Farms in 1922. They were then assessed to Pacific Southwest Trust and
Savings Bank briefly in 1924, before the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company took ownership
in 1925. In 1926, Lot 739 was split into two parcels and Lot 742 was split into five separate
parcels, four of which include the current project. In 1932, the original Lot 739 was split further,
making five total parcels. Table 3.3–2 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3–3.
Table 3.3–2
1926 to 1932 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
Year Original Lot
Number Description
1926
739 West 2.26 acres
East 62.48 acres
742
East 1/2
North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2
South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2
South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2†
1932 739
West 2.26 acres*
West 6.99 acres of the east 13.46 acres
West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres
West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres
East 2.28 acres
742 No change*
*No change from the previous lot split
†Parcel is located outside of the project
In 1934, the “west 6.99 acres of the east 13.46 acres” of Lot 739 were split into three
separate lots. In 1942, the “west 2.26 acres” of Lot 739 were bisected from east to west, and in
1945, the southern portion (the “west 2.26 acres excluding the north 235 feet”) was split in half
from north to south. Another change to the southwest portion of Lot 739 occurred in 1947, when
the “east 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet” were bisected from east to
west, creating two additional parcels. Between 1926 and 1947, no changes were made to Lot 742.
In 1947 the “east 1/2” was split into four parcels and in 1950, the “north 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the
east 1/2” was split into two more parcels. By 1950, Lot 739 contained 10 separate parcels and Lot
742 contained nine parcels. Table 3.3–3 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3–
4.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–12
Table 3.3–3
1934 to 1950 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
Year Original Lot
Number Description
1934 739
West 2.26 acres*
West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres
West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres
West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres
West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres*
West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres*
East 2.28 acres*
742 No change*
1942 739
North 235 feet of the west 2.26 acres
West 2.26 acres excluding the north 235 feet
West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres*
West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres*
West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres*
West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres*
West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres*
East 2.28 acres*
742 No change*
1945 739
North 241 feet of the west 2.26 acres
(six feet added to the length of the parcel)
East 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet
West 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet,
excluding the east 90 feet
West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres*
West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres*
West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres*
West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres*
West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres*
East 2.28 acres*
742 No change*
1947 739
North 241 feet of the west 2.26 acres*
Corner located 147 feet north from Oleander and Boyle avenues,
on the east side of Oleander Avenue, then 80 feet north, of the
west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet,
excluding the east 90 feet
Northeast corner of Oleander and Boyle avenues, then 147 feet
north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet,
excluding the east 90 feet
East 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet*
West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres*
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–13
Year Original Lot
Number Description
West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres*
West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres*
West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres*
West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres*
East 2.28 acres*
742
East 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the north 1/2
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2
South 1/2 of the east 1/2, excluding the easterly 3.5 acres
Easterly 3.5 acres
North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2*
South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2*
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2*
South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2†
1950
739 No change*
742
East 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the north 1/2*
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2,
excluding the westerly 120 feet
The westerly 120 feet of the north 1/2
of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2
South 1/2 of the east 1/2 excluding the easterly 3.5 acres*
Easterly 3.5 acres*
North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2*
South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2*
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2*
South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2†
*No change from the previous lot split
†Parcel is located outside of the project
In 1951, formal APNs were assigned to the parcels (Table 3.3–4). Also at this time, “the
northeast corner of Oleander and Boyle Avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres,
excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet” was bisected from east to west. No
changes were made to Lot 742 until 1957, when APNs 251-164-01 and -02 were each split into
two parcels (forming APNs 251-164-10, -11, -12, and -13) (Table 3.3–5). In 1961, the southwest
corner of APN 251-164-12 was split, creating an additional parcel (APN 251-164-14). The
acreage of all the parcels was adjusted when the APNs were assigned, as shown on Figure 3.3–5.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–15
Table 3.3–4
1951 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project With Assigned APNs
Year Original Lot
Number Description APN
1951
739
North 241 feet of the west 2.26 acres* 251-163-05
Corner located 147 feet north from Oleander and Boyle
avenues, on the east side of Oleander Avenue, then 80
feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north
241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet*
251-163-04
North portion of the northeast corner of Oleander
and Boyle avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west
2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding
the east 90 feet
251-163-03
South portion of the northeast corner of Oleander
and Boyle avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west
2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding
the east 90 feet
251-163-02
East 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres
excluding the north 241 feet* 251-163-01
West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres* 251-163-06
West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres* 251-163-07
West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres* 251-163-08
West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres* 251-163-09
West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres* 251-163-10
East 2.28 acres* 251-163-11
742
East 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the north 1/2* 251-164-05
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2,
excluding the westerly 120 feet* 251-164-04
The westerly 120 feet of the north 1/2
of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2* 251-164-03
South 1/2 of the east 1/2,
excluding the easterly 3.5 acres* 251-164-06
Easterly 3.5 acres* 251-164-07
North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* 251-164-02
South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* 251-164-08
North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2* 251-164-01
South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2† 251-164-09
*No change from the previous lot split
†Parcel is located outside of the project
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–16
Table 3.3–5
1957 to 1961 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
Year Original Lot
Number Previous APN New APN
1957
739
251-163-01
No change
251-163-02
251-163-03
251-163-04
251-163-05
251-163-06
251-163-07
251-163-08
251-163-09
251-163-10
251-163-11
742
251-164-01 251-164-12
251-164-13
251-164-02 251-164-10
251-164-11
251-164-03
No change
251-164-04
251-164-05
251-164-06
251-164-07
251-164-08
251-164-09*
1961
739 No change
742
251-164-03
No change
251-164-04
251-164-05
251-164-06
251-164-07
251-164-08
251-164-09*
251-164-10
251-164-11
251-164-12 251-164-12
251-164-14
251-164-13 No change
*Parcel is located outside of the project
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–18
In 1971, APN 251-164-13 of Lot 742 was divided into APNs 251-164-15 and -16 and in
1972, APN 251-164-08 of Lot 742 was divided into APNs 251-164-17, -18, and -19. No changes
were made to Lot 739 between 1957 and 1975. Table 3.3–6 details the lot splits that are associated
with Figure 3.3–6.
Table 3.3–6
1962 to 1975 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
Year Original Lot
Number Previous APN New APN
1971
739 No change
742
251-164-03
No change
251-164-04
251-164-05
251-164-06
251-164-07
251-164-08
251-164-09
251-164-10
251-164-11
251-164-12
251-164-13 251-164-15
251-164-16
251-164-14 No change
1972
739 No change
742
251-164-03
No change
251-164-04
251-164-05
251-164-06
251-164-07
251-164-08
251-164-17
251-164-18
251-164-19
251-164-09*
No change
251-164-10
251-164-11
251-164-12
251-164-14
251-164-15
251-164-16
*Parcel is located outside of the project
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–20
In 2021, lots 739 and 742 were split into their current configuration. Within Lot 739, APN
251-163-11 was divided as APNs 251-163-12 and -13. Within Lot 742, APN 251-164-05 was
divided as APNs 251-164-22 and -23; APN 251-164-09 was divided as APNs 251-164-26 and -
27; and APNs 251-164-17, -18, and -19 were combined as APN 251-164-20. At an unknown date,
APNs 251-164-06 and -07 were combined as APN 251-164-21, which was divided into APNs
251-164-24 and -25 by 2021. APNs 251-163-12 and 251-164-22, -24, -26, and -27 are located
outside the project. Table 3.3–7 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3–7.
Table 3.3–7
2021 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
Year Original Lot
Number Previous APN New APN
2021
739
251-163-01
No change
251-163-02
251-163-03
251-163-04
251-163-05
251-163-06
251-163-07
251-163-08
251-163-09
251-163-10
251-163-11 **251-163-12
251-163-13
742
251-164-03 No change 251-164-04
251-164-05 **251-164-22
251-164-23
251-164-06 **251-164-24
251-164-07 251-164-25
251-164-09 **251-164-26
**251-164-27
251-164-10
No change
251-164-11
251-164-12
251-164-14
251-164-15
251-164-16
251-164-17
251-164-20 251-164-18
251-164-19
*Parcel is located outside of the project
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–22
3.3.2 Property Ownership History
Of the previously discussed parcels within the project, eight are associated with historic
structures (Table 3.3–8). The following sections details the relevant property ownership of the
associated structures within the project.
Table 3.3–8
Sites Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project by Parcel
Original Lot
Number Current APN Site Number
739
251-163-01 Temp-7
251-163-02 Temp-5
251-163-03 Temp-3
251-163-04 Temp-2
251-163-05 Temp-1
251-163-06 No historic structures 251-163-07
251-163-08 Temp-8
251-163-09
No historic structures 251-163-10
251-163-13
742
251-164-03
No historic structures 251-164-04
251-164-10
251-164-11
251-164-12 Temp-4
251-164-14 No historic structures 251-164-15
251-164-16 Temp-6
251-164-20
No historic structures 251-164-23
251-164-25
Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue/1396 Boyle Avenue)
The County of San Bernardino Parcel Information Management System indicates that the
single-family residence located at 10349 Oleander Avenue was built in 1923. At that time, the
property was owned by the Fontana Farms Company. In 1924, ownership of the property was
transferred to the Pacific South West Trust and Savings Bank Corporation, and in 1925, it was
transferred to the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company. Following the subdivision of the
property in 1926 (see Section 3.3.3‒1), Joseph Kischner purchased the land and a year later,
transferred ownership to Erdmann “Ed” and Anna Grikscheit. When the Grikscheits purchased
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–23
the property in 1927, the address of the residence was 1396 Boyle Avenue.
Anna and Ed Grikscheit were both born in Germany in 1864. By 1905, the couple had
emigrated to Hennepin, Minnesota with their four children (Ancestry.com 2007a). After their
children were grown, in 1927, Erdmann and Anna moved to Fontana (San Bernardino County Sun
1938a). The Grikscheits owned the property from 1927 until the late 1930s. Between 1928 and
1930, Ed Grikscheit worked as a watchman and Anna was a housewife (Ancestry.com 2017a).
The 10349 Oleander Avenue residence is first visible in a 1933 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–2)
and more clearly visible in a 1938 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–3).
Anna Grikscheit passed away in April 1938 and Ed in July 1938 (San Bernardino County
Sun 1938a, 1938b, 1938c). In 1939, the mortgage on the property was released by the Board of
Supervisors and the property was transferred to Clyde Nichols. Between 1938 and 1953, the
building was expanded to the east via two large additions, which doubled the size of the original
residence. During that time, the property was owned by several different individuals.
The first owner after 1939 was Clyde Vernon Nicholls, who was born in Illinois in 1905.
Prior to leaving the state, he married Emily Cravens, who was born in Illinois in 1899. The couple
lived in Illinois until at least 1935, then Minnesota for one year, then to California in 1939. Both
Clyde and Emily Nicholls listed on the 1940 census that they received pensions rather than
working (Ancestry.com 2012a). Circa 1942, they moved to Blythe, California, and the property
was transferred to William and Emma E. Faulk. A year later, ownership was transferred to Byron
P. and Bertha D. Peirson.
Byron Paul Peirson was born in New York in 1905. In 1924, he married Bertha Steighler,
also of New York. The couple lived in New York until at least 1942, where Byron Peirson worked
at a grocery store (Ancestry.com 2011a). After moving to Fontana, Byron Peirson became a
licensed building contractor (Big Bear Life 1959). By 1944, the couple had moved to Bear Valley,
California (Big Bear Life 1959). Since Peirson was a building contractor, it is possible that he
built the additions on the 10349 Oleander Avenue building while living there between 1942 and
1944.
Between 1939 and 1953, the property was subdivided several times. In 1945, when the
residence at 16310 Boyle Avenue (Temp-5) was constructed, the 1396 Boyle Avenue address
(previously 10349 Oleander Avenue) was transferred to that residence. Once complete, the
Peirsons moved into the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence. By 1953, the address of the residence
recorded as Temp-1 was reassigned as 10349 Oleander Avenue. Following the 1944 lot split, prior
to the Peirsons moving to their new residence, Margaret Marx purchased the 10349 Oleander
Avenue property. In 1945, Marx sold the property to Charles Johnstonfer, who, that same year,
sold it to Thomas and Lea G. Marti.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–26
Thomas Marti was born in Italy in 1891. Marti arrived in the United States in 1912, where
he lived in Chicago with his sister and brother-in-law, working as a waiter (Ancestry.com 2002).
In 1931, he married Leah DeVoe of Indiana (Ancestry.com 2008). After their marriage, the couple
lived in Chicago, Illinois, until the 1940s, where Thomas Marti was the proprietor of a tavern
(Ancestry.com 2012a). Circa 1945, they moved to Fontana; however, no records of them living
at the 10349 Oleander Avenue residence could be located. They owned the subject property until
at least 1951. By 1955, the property was owned by Sam and Lydia Lampela. Sam Lampela was
born in Finland in 1884 (San Bernardino County Sun 1972a).
In 1963, the property was used for raising chickens. An advertisement described the
residence as a two-bedroom house on one acre “equipped for raising chickens. Several chicken
houses. Lots of shrubs & trees” (San Bernardino County Sun 1963). That
year, the property was purchased by train engineer Joseph Wray Collins
(San Bernardino County Sun 1964) and his daughter, Betty Lou McCall
(Plate 3.3–4).
Joseph Collins was born in Ontario, Canada, in 1899. In 1923, he
married Louisa Mildred Peebles in Niagara Falls, Canada (Ancestry.com
2014). Louisa Collins was born in Niagara Falls, Canada, in 1906. In 1927,
the couple immigrated to Calexico, California (Ancestry.com 2014), then
moved to Long Beach. By 1929, they were living in the South Gate-
Lynwood area of Los Angeles (Ancestry.com 2002), where they had Betty
Lou. Betty Lou “attended and graduated from South Gate High School in
1947. She also attended Compton Junior College for two years” (The
Missoulian 2008).
Louisa Collins passed away in 1963 (San Bernardino County Sun 1986) and shortly after,
Joseph Collins and Betty Lou McCall purchased the 10349 Oleander Avenue property. According
to Assessor’s records, in 1965, ownership of the property was transferred to Betty and her husband,
Hye L. McCall, II. Betty and Hye McCall were married “in Yuma, Ariz., on March 3, 1956.
Together they had a son, Hye L. McCall III, and a daughter, Pamela A. McCall, whom she loved
very dearly” (The Missoulian 2008). According to the Ravalli Republic (2012):
[Hye McCall, II] was born Jan. 13, 1929 in Ardmore, Okla. to Hye L. and Ruby
Pearl McCall. Hye attended grade school and junior high in Ardmore. Hye
dropped out of school at age 13 to help support the family as his father had died
when he was 8 years old. Hye had many jobs, first working at a bakery in Ardmore,
then with a traveling carnival. At age 15 he went to Oklahoma City and worked
for the Wonder Bread bakery. At 17 he joined the Navy and served three years.
While serving he received his high school diploma from Ardmore High School.
When he was discharged he went to work for Foxrig Lumber and Drilling in
Oklahoma City. In 1951 he relocated to El Centro, Calif. and drove a lettuce truck.
Plate 3.3‒4: Betty Lou
McCall. (Photograph
courtesy of The
Missoulian 2008)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–27
In 1952 he moved back to Ardmore and ran the Cattle Club for three years. Hye
then moved back to Ventura, Calif. and drove a taxi for two years, then relocating
to Los Angeles, he worked for the Metalizing Co. as a shop foreman. There he met
and married his wife Betty Lou …
In 1958 Hye went to work for Washington National Insurance, first as a salesman
and later as a staff supervisor. In 1960 he took a job as salesman for RTC Technical
School and sold technical school courses. In 1963 Hye relocated with his family to
Fontana, Calif. and took a job with Kaiser Steel where he settled in for a career first
as a laborer and then pipe inspector, until the mill closed in 1984. At that time he
retired.
In 2005, the McCalls sold the property to Melody Viramontes and Amador Salinas and
moved to Hamilton, Montana. Betty Lou McCall passed away in Hamilton, Montana, in 2008
(The Missoulian 2008). While owned by Viramontes and Salinas, the additions on the eastern end
of the 10349 Oleander Avenue building were expanded.
Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue/1211 South Oleander Avenue)
The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed as
a Contemporary-style, single-family residence in 1946. In 1946,
the Peirsons constructed a residence on the the northern portion
of their parcel for for their daughter Edna Jane and her husband
Harry Robert DeWeese. The 10367 Oleander Avenue residence
is first visible in a 1953 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–5). In 1947,
the lot was formally split (see Section 3.3.3‒1), at which time the
DeWeeses took formal ownership of the residence and property.
The address of the property at this time was 1211 South Oleander
Avenue.
Harry DeWeese (Plate 3.3–6) was born on August 9,
1925, in San Bernardino and Edna Jane Perison was born on April
10, 1926, in Fontana. The couple married on June 26, 1945, in
Newport, Oregon. Harry was a member of the United States
Coast Guard at the time (San Bernardino County Sun 1943). The
DeWeesees moved back to Fontana, where they had their first
child on March 29, 1946, while living with Edna’s parents at 1396
Boyle Avenue (16310 Boyle Avenue/Temp-5) (San Bernardino
County Sun 1946).
Plate 3.3‒6: Harry
DeWeese. (Photograph
courtesy of San Bernardino
County Sun 1943)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–29
In January 1947, Harry DeWeese was appointed as a fireman to the San Bernardino Fire
Department (San Bernardino County Sun 1947a) and the DeWeeses moved into the 1211 South
Oleander Avenue residence. However, that same year, prior to the birth of their second child on
September 18, 1947 (San Bernardino County Sun 1947b), they moved away. In 1948, they sold
the property it to Frances D. Buck.
Buck owned the property until 1961, but San Bernardino County Voter Lists indicate that
she never actually lived on the property. John R. and Mary I. DeVoss are the listed residents of
the property from 1950 until at least 1962. According to San Bernardino Voter Lists, during this
time, between 1954 and 1956, the address of the property changed from 1211 South Oleander
Avenue to 10367 Oleander Avenue.
In 1961, Elizabeth A. Liner purchased the
property, and in 1963, sold it to James and Jack Sowell.
In 1968, the Sowells sold the property to Isabelle Lloyd.
In 1971 and 1972, advertisements were placed in the San
Bernardino County Sun listing the home for rent (Plate
3.3–7).
Lloyd maintained sole ownership of the property until 1980, when Clara A. and Harry M.
Dayton were added to the deed. Bi State Development took full ownership of the property in 1990
and Frances and Donald A. Trumble purchased it that same year. In 1995, Leonardo Ruelas
purchased the property, and in 2004, he added his wife, Guadalupe, as an owner. In 2010, Wells
Fargo took ownership of the property and that same year, it was sold to Ivan and Sonia C. Meza
Hidalgo. The Hidalgos owned the 10367 Oleander Avenue property until 2021, when Duke Realty
purchased it for this project.
Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue/1213 South Oleander Avenue)
The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was originally constructed as a Minimal Traditional-
style, single-family residence in 1950, which is first visible on the 1953 aerial photograph (see
Plate 3.3–5). At that time, Eliza and George Beiser owned the parcel, where they built a residence
on the northern end for Eliza’s daughter Emma and her husband Jesse Weirich. In 1951, the lot
was formally split (see Section 3.3.3‒1) and the Weirichs took ownership of the parcel and
residence. When they moved onto the property, the residence had the address of 1213 South
Oleander Avenue, but by 1952, the address had changed to 10375 Oleander Avenue.
Emma Weirich was born on June 25, 1899, in Ohio. She married Jesse Van Cise on
December 4, 1916, in Detroit, Michigan (Ancestry.com 2015). They had two children, Virginia
(1919) and Ruth Mae (circa 1926). By 1930, they had divorced and Emma was living in Toledo,
Ohio, with her daughters (Ancestry.com 2002).
Plate 3.3‒7: Advertisement to rent 10367
Oleander Avenue. (Advertisement courtesy
of San Bernardino County Sun 1971)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–30
Jesse Weirich was born on December 3, 1889, in Colton, Ohio. He married Florence Ellen
Wilson on December 10, 1910, in Colton, Ohio (Ancestry.com 2022a) (Plate 3.3‒8). The couple
had six children: Lawrence Arthur
(1913), Paul Delbert (1915), Jessie
Ellen (1917), Laurel Irene (1921), Ruth
Elizabeth (1923), and Edna Glory
(1926). Between 1926 and 1930, the
two were divorced.
The 1930 Federal Census
indicates that Jesse was a lodger in
Emma Van Cise’s house that year, and
between 1930 and 1940, she and Jesse
were married (Ancestry.com 2002,
2012a). In 1948, they moved to
Fontana with Emma’s mother and
stepfather, the Biesers (The Sandusky
Register 1959). On December 10,
1952, just a year after they moved into
their new house at 1213 South Oleander
Avenue, Emma died unexpectedly after
a long bout with illness (Ancestry.com 1952). Jesse continued to own the 10367 Oleander Avenue
property until he died of lung cancer on March 5, 1959.
Following Jesse’s death, in 1959, Edna J. Rylczyski and Ora and Joan S. Scott purchased
the property and in 1961, sold it to Florence Canterberry, who in 1962, sold it to Naomi J. and
Vernon E. Cameron. In 1963, the Camerons sold the property in joint ownership to Bette G. Morck
and Henrietta Halls. By 1966, Morck and Halls had sold the property to Pamela P. and Marinus
Grotenhuis. Following their divorce in 1982, Marinus Grotenhuis retained sole ownership of the
property until 1992, when it was sold to Grace Vargas. In 1994, Vargas sold the property to Eliazar
and Virginia Ruelas. In 2003, the property was deeded to their son, Leonardo Ruelas, who in
2006, sold it to Jorge L. and Aide Payan. The Payans owned 10367 Oleander Avenue until 2021,
when it was sold to Duke Realty.
Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue)
The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was originally constructed as a Ranch-style, single-
family residence in 1966, which is first visible on the 1966 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–9). In
1961 the property was formally split into APN 251-164-12 (see Section 3.3.3‒1) and Clarance C.
and Pauline H. Hunt purchased the parcel. The Hunts did not live on the property until they built
their residence in 1966.
Plate 3.3‒8: Jesse Weirich (male in chair) and
Florence Wilson (female in chair) circa 1910.
(Photograph courtesy of Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–32
Clarence Clifford Hunt was born on July 17, 1912, in Hanging Rock, West Virginia. He
married Florence Mae Hunt, with whom he had a son, Charles Leonard Hunt. Following
Florence’s death in 1956 (San Bernardino County Sun 1956a), Hunt married Pauline, who was
born in 1916 (Ancestry.com 2012b). In 1976, the Hunts sold the property to Norman R. and Irene
S. Johnson, who retained ownership until 1979. Clarence Hunt died in 2001 and Pauline Hunt in
2005 (Ancestry.com 2012b).
In 1979, George Sherman, Jr. and Julie Ann Felshaw purchased the property. George
Felshaw, Jr. was born on May 5, 1947 (Ancestry.com 2010a). Julie Ann Parmeter was born on
July 21, 1951, in Oneida, New York. The couple had three children, Brian, John, and Stephan
(Ancestry.com 2006). Following Julie’s death in 2010, the property was transferred to a family
trust. In 2012, Javier R. and Beatriz A. Ramirez purchased the property. In 2015, Beatriz Ramirez
became the sole owner of the property until 2021, when it was purchased by Duke Realty.
Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue/1396 Boyle Avenue)
The 16310 Boyle Avenue building was originally constructed as a Transitional Ranch-
style, single-residence in 1945 and is first visible on the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5).
The property underwent several lot splits between 1945 and 1947 (see Section 3.3.3–1) while
owned by Byron and Bertha Peirson. As stated previously, when the Peirsons constructed the
1945 residence at the northeast corner of Boyle and Oleander avenues, the 1396 Boyle Avenue
address was transferred to this property from 10349 Oleander Avenue (Temp-1). See the previous
discussion of Temp-1 for a history of the Peirsons.
In 1948, the Peirsons sold the parcel containing 1396 Boyle Avenue to Eliza Virginia
(Jenny) and George Adolph Beiser. In 1951, the property was subdivided one final time into its
current configuration (see Section 3.3.3–1) and by 1952, the address of the property had changed
to 16310 Boyle Avenue.
Eliza Virginia (Jenny) Willett was born in Toledo, Ohio, on January 30, 1882
(Ancestry.com 2000). She married John C. Dailey in 1899 and shortly after had their first child,
Emma Henrietta, on June 25, 1899 (Ancestry.com 2000). Their second child, Laurence J., was
born on December 28, 1901 (Ancestry.com 2012b). By 1911, Eliza had divorced John and married
his brother Raymond on April 21, 1911. Sometime prior to 1933, Eliza and Raymond were
divorced (Ancestry.com 2016a).
George Adoph Beiser was born on July 31, 1884, in Chicago, Illinois (Ancestry.com
2012b). He married Eva Corell Beiser on June 23, 1906, in Hamilton, Ohio (Ancestry.com 2016a).
They remained married until Eva’s death on October 7, 1940. George and Jenny Beiser were
married in 1942 while living in Ohio (Ancestry.com 2012b). Between 1945 and 1948, they moved
to California (Ancestry.com 2011b). The Beisers purchased the 16310 Boyle Avenue property in
1948. In 1950, they built a residence on the north end for Eliza’s daughter Emma and her husband
Jesse Weirich (see Temp-3/10375 Oleander Avenue discussion). In 1951, the lot was split into its
current configuration and the Beisers remained living in the southern portion (Temp-5/16310
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–33
Boyle Avenue) and the Weirichs took ownership over the northern section (Temp-3/10375
Oleander Avenue). George Beiser died on March 8, 1956, and Jenny Beiser on January 18, 1958
(Ancestry.com 2000).
Following Jenny Beiser’s death in 1958, ownership of the 16310 Boyle Avenue parcel was
transferred to Jesse Weirich’s daughter, Jessie Ellen Weirich Axton, and her husband Charles
Joseph Axton. San Bernardino County Voter Records indicate that the Axtons were living in Los
Angeles while they owned the parcel from 1958 to 1962 (Ancestry.com 2017a). In 1962, Walter
Sanford and Josephine Eva Coates purchased the property. Walter died on August 1, 1971, and
sole ownership of the property was transferred to Josephine (Ancestry.com 2000). In 1974, Coates
added her daughter, Pearl Oesterreich, to the property’s deed. Coates and Oesterreich shared
ownership of the property until 1976, when they sold it to Robert M. and Frances M. Vitale. San
Bernardino County Voter Records indicate that neither Coates nor Oesterreich ever lived at 16310
Boyle Avenue while they owned the property (Ancestry.com 2017a). In 1980, Wayne Del Horner
purchased the property and in 1983, sold it to Amador Arteada and Maria N. Salinas. In 1995,
Salinas gained sole ownership of 16310 Boyle Avenue until 2016, when ownership passed to
Humberto Salinas. Duke Realty purchased the property in 2021 for the current project.
Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue/1395 Boyle Avenue)
The 16321 Boyle Avenue building was originally constructed in an unknown style as a
single-family residence in 1926 and is first visible on the 1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3‒
2). That year, Albert and Marie Zaugg purchased the property. In 1934, the residence was
remodeled; however, no exterior changes can be seen on the 1938 aerial photograph (see Plate
3.3‒3). By 1936, the address for the residence was 1395 Boyle Avenue (Ancestry.com 2017a).
Albert Zaugg was born on September 18, 1872, in Soleure, Switzerland. Marie (Mary)
Bulhmann was born on April 20, 1871, also in Switzerland. On November 17, 1899, they had
their son Arthur in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Zauggs immigrated to Detroit, Michigan, in
October 1920 from Lausanne (Ancestry.com 2010b). The Zauggs purchased the 16321 Boyle
Avenue property in 1926. The 1930 Federal Census indicates that Albert was working as a laborer
for various jobs, and by 1940, he and Marie were retired (Ancestry.com 2002, 2012a). Marie
Zaugg died on July 7, 1943, and Albert Zaugg on May 28, 1945, while living at (then) 1395 Boyle
Avenue. Ownership of the property passed to Arthur Zaugg, who in 1946, sold it to Lew Dwight
and Beulah Evelyn (Plate 3.3–10) McCoy.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–34
Lew Dwight McCoy was born on November 20, 1913, in Dawes, Nebraska, and died on
June 26, 1980 (Ancestry.com 2000, 2011a). Beulah Evelyn Smith
was born on March 12, 1913 and died on May 10, 2011. According
to the obituary for Beulah McCoy:
Beulah was the tenth child of eleven children born to
George W. Smith and Susannah Alcorn Smith, March 12,
1913, in Crawford, Nebraska. She attended school in
Crawford and finished high school in Alliance, Nebraska.
Beulah married Lew “Bud” McCoy in 1933, and the couple
were blessed with two children, daughter, Rochelle, in 1936
and son, Errol, in 1941. She taught country schools for
several years, and then in 1946, the family moved to
Fontana, California where they made their home until 1987.
Beulah continued her education in California and earned her
Masters Degree in Early development. They then
subsequently built and opened her Mother Goose Nursery
School which she ran for twenty years. During those twenty years, she was elected
for a two year term as president of the Southern California Nursery School
Association. The nursery school was sold and Lew passes away in 1980. In 1987,
Beulah married Tom W. Glendy, sold her home in California and they moved to
Crawford. She was again widowed in 1999 when Tom passed away. In 2000, she
moved into an apartment connected to her daughter’s home in Crawford and then
ponderosa Villa Nursing Home until the time of her demise. (Ancestry.com 2012b)
The property was subdivided further in 1971 (see Section 3.3.3‒1), after which the McCoys
retained ownership of APN 251-164-16. Also in 1971, Beulah McCoy became the sole owner of
the property. In 1988, she sold the property to Phillip and Elaine V. Chan, who kept it until 1990,
when it was sold to Thomas Chacon. In 2010, the Bank of America gained ownership and in 2011,
Patty Rojvongpaisal purchased the property. From 2013 to 2021, the property was held by the
Rojvongpaisal Family Trust before being purchased by Duke Realty for the current project.
Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue/1394 Boyle Avenue)
The 16326 Boyle Avenue property contains three buildings that were constructed between
1930 and 1985. The southernmost residence was constructed in 1930 and is first visible on the
1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3‒2). The residence to the north of the 1930 residence was
constructed between 1962 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3‒9 and 3.3‒11). The building farthest north on
the parcel is a non-historic manufactured home that was constructed between 1977 and 1985
(Plates 3.3‒12 and 3.3‒13).
Plate 3.3‒10: Beulah
McCoy. (Photograph
courtesy of
FindAGrave.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–38
In 1930, while the Grikscheists were living at 10349 Oleander Avenue, the 16326 Boyle
Avenue (1394 Boyle Avenue) residence was constructed. According to the San Bernardino
County Lot Book, no other residents or owners are listed in relationship to 251-163-01, even
though a residence was constructed in 1930. A search of the San Bernardino County Voter Lists
indicates that Ralph Clarence and Ida Marie Swanson were living at 1394 Boyle Avenue in 1934
(Ancestry.com 2017a). While the 1930 Federal Census (Ancestry.com 2002) does not list
dwelling addresses, it is likely that the Swansons were residing at 1394 Boyle Avenue in 1930
when the residence was constructed, as their neighbors listed in the 1930 census are all the same
owners listed in the San Bernardino County Lot Book, in order from east to west. The voter lists
indicate that the Swansons resided at 1394 Boyle Avenue until at least 1938, and the 1940 Federal
Census indicates that the Swansons had moved from the residence by that time (Ancestry.com
2012a, 2017a).
Ralph Clarence Swanson was born on October 28, 1892, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He
served in the army in World War I as a private, first class in the 345th machine gun battalion
(Ancestry.com 2012b), where he lost his right eye (Ancestry.com 2011a). Following his service,
he joined the Disabled American Veterans in Fontana, Post 87. Ida Marie Swanson was born on
August 6, 1899, in Minnesota to Ed and Anna Griksheit, the listed owners of the parcel from 1927
to 1939. Ralph and Ida Swanson were married in Minnesota
on February 17, 1922 (MOMS 2002) and had four children:
Ralph B. in 1922, Robert Paul in 1923, George Allen in 1927,
and Gloria Anne in 1929. The couple remained at 16326
Boyle Avenue (then 1394 Boyle Avenue) until 1939, when the
parcel was sold to Clyde Nichols (see Temp-1 discussion).
The 1930 residence was likely constructed by Ida Swanson’s
parents for her family, and they remained there until her
parents died in 1938 (see Temp-1 discussion). Ralph Swanson
died at the age of 61 on December 15, 1953, in Long Beach,
California (San Bernardino County Sun 1953) and Ida
Swanson died at the age of 79 on January 22, 1979
(Ancestry.com 2012b).
The property wasn’t formally split from the northern
parcel until 1945 (see Section 3.3‒1). Following the 1945 lot
split, the next listed residents of the property are Charles
Salvatore and Frances Loretta Zaffuto. Charles Zaffuto was
born on April 9, 1911, in Delancey, Pennsylvania and Frances
Loretta Polichetti was born on May 3, 1913, in Dunkirk, New
York, both to Italian immigrants. The couple married on November 23, 1932, in Dunkirk, New
York, and had two boys and three girls (Plate 3.3–14). Charles Zaffuto died on May 26, 1994, in
Pomona, California (San Bernardino County Sun 1994) and Frances Zaffuto died on March 27,
Plate 3.3‒14: Charles and
Frances Zafutto and their
children. (Photograph
courtesy of Ancestry.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–39
1989, in San Bernardino, California (Ancestry.com 2000).
In 1949, the Zafuttos sold the 1394 Boyle Avenue property to Jaime Hendlin who, in 1950,
sold it to Robert L. and Mary Ethel Tate. The Tates lived at 1394 Boyle Avenue until 1954, when
they sold to property to Edward C. Sieg who, in 1955, sold it to William Kaywood and Vera Opal
Agan. Between 1953 and 1954, the address of the residence changed to 16326 Boyle Avenue.
William Agan was born in Miami, Oklahoma, on July 30, 1898. He married Icel Alberta
Pifer on January 14, 1916, in Missouri (Ancestry.com 2007b). Between 1917 and 1922, they had
three children: Jack Kaywood (April 19, 1917), Ruth Irene (September 1, 1919), and Clair Ralph
(February 23, 1922). Sometime between Clair’s birth and the year 1928, Icel and William
divorced. Prior to 1929, William married Vera Opal Eden. Vera Opal Eden was born in Missouri
in 1908 (Ancestry.com 2002). Together they had two children: Vera Ellen (February 14, 1929)
and Betty Jean (November 20, 1930). “Difficult times due to the Great Depression led [the Agans]
to move to Los Angeles in 1938” (The News Tribune 2017). During their time in California,
William worked as a steel layout man. He died at the 16326 Boyle Avenue Residence on May 29,
1956 (San Bernardino County Sun 1956b). Following his death, Vera married their neighbor,
Walter A. Deas, who lived across the street at 16351 Boyle Avenue (1383 Boyle Avenue), on
November 22, 1957.
Aerial photographs indicate that a second residence was constructed behind the original
1930 residence sometime between 1962 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–11). However, this
structure was not given its own address. The 16326 Boyle Avenue property remained in Agans’
names until 1971, when sole ownership was transferred to Vera. In 1974, Vera Agan sold the
property to Donald E. Dayton and she and Deas moved to Tacoma, Washington (The News Tribune
2017). Vera Agan died on May 4, 1996, in Tacoma (Ancestry.com 2011c).
Donald E. Dayton owned the 16326 Boyle Avenue property from 1974 until 1987, when
he sold it to Salvador and Lidia Garcia. During Dayton’s ownership, a manufactured home was
constructed in the northern portion of the parcel between 1977 and 1985 (see Plates 3.3–12 and
3.3–13). The Garcias lived at the property until 2002, when they sold it to Arturo and Victor
Banuelos. The Banuelos transferred ownership of the property in 2006 to Santiago Caballero and
Zepeda Evaristo, who retained it until 2021, when it was sold to Duke Realty for the current
project.
Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue/1370 Boyle Avenue)
The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was originally constructed as a single-family residence
in 1930 and is first visible on the 1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–2). When the residence
was constructed, the property was owned by the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company. When
the lot was split in 1932, it was purchased by the Fontana Farms Company, who owned the
property until 1934, when the property was split again (see Section 3.3.3‒1). Following this split,
it was purchased by Patrick and Clara Lulu Cannon. It doesn’t appear that the residence was used
until the Cannons purchased the property. San Bernardino County Voter Lists indicate that the
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–40
address of Temp-8 was 1370 Boyle Avenue from 1934 until 1955 (Ancestry.com 2017a).
Patrick and Clara Lulu Cannon were the first residents of 13698 Boyle Avenue (1370 Boyle
Avenue). Clara Lulu Northup (Plate 3.3‒15) was born in
Pokagon, Michigan, circa 1864, and Patrick Cannon was born in
Illinois circa 1864. The couple was married on May 20, 1890, and
had two children in Akron, Iowa: Alfred Clark on November 3,
1893, and Kittie Iona on September 18, 1895 (Ancestry.com
2017b). In 1928 and 1930, the Cannons lived on a farm at an
unnumbered residence on Boyle Avenue (Ancestry.com 2002,
2017a). The 1940 Federal Census indicates that the home had
received the official address of 1370 Boyle Avenue by that year
and that the Cannons lived in that same home in 1935
(Ancestry.com 2012a). Clara Cannon died on April 15, 1941(San
Bernardino County Sun 1941). In 1946, Patrick Cannon moved
from 1370 Boyle Avenue to San Diego (Ancestry.com 2017a; San
Diego Union 1949) and died on August 4, 1949 (San Bernardino
County Sun 1949).
The 13698 Boyle Avenue (1370 Boyle Avenue) residence
is still listed in the San Bernardino County Assessor’s lot books
as being owned by Patrick Cannon until 1955; however, the voter
lists indicate that Marion Cecil and Caroline M. Waddell had moved into the residence by 1952
(Ancestry.com 2017a). Marion Waddell was born on April 13, 1901, in Greenville, Tennessee
(Ancestry.com 2012c). In 1913, the Waddell family moved to Riverside, California (San
Bernardino County Sun 1966). He married Margaret Edna in 1944. That same year, their marriage
was annulled Marion Waddell began working for the Kaiser Steel Company (San Bernardino
County Sun 1966). Sometime after his annulment in 1944, Waddell married Caroline Eichenberg
(San Bernardino County Sun 1966).
Caroline M. Eichenberg was born in Warrensville, Ohio, in December 1899 (Ancestry.com
2004). She married John Guy Staley on September 25, 1916, in Newport, Kentucky
(Ancestry.com 2016b), and they were divorced on November 23, 1919. She then married George
Edward Jaggard on July 19, 1920, in Warrensville, Ohio (Ancestry.com 2010c), with whom she
had two children, Elenora Anna and George, Jr. George Jaggard, Sr. died on April 4, 1925, after
which Caroline was married to Elmer Karres until at least 1940 (Ancestry.com 2012a). Marion
Waddell lived at 16398 Boyle Avenue until his death on July 26, 1966 (San Bernardino County
Sun 1966). According to Assessor’s records, Caroline Waddell remained at 16398 Boyle Avenue
from circa 1952 until 1974. At the time of her death in August 1984, she was living in central
Point, Oregon (Ancestry.com 2022b).
From 1974 to 1976, Joseph H. and Tammye R. Howard owned the 16398 Boyle Avenue
property. In 1976, Irvin L. and Margaret C. Kelly purchased the property and lived in the residence
Plate 3.3‒14: Clara Lulu
Cannon circa 1884.
(Photograph courtesy of
FindAGrave.com)
Plate 3.3‒15: Clara Lulu
Cannon circa 1884.
(Photograph courtesy of
FindAGrave.com)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–41
until 1989. From 1989 to 2007, Dennis J. and Hazel I. Miller owned the property and from 2007
to 2012, Louis J. Atilano owned the property. The U.S. Bank took ownership from 2012 to 2014,
when the property was purchased by Ohno Construction Company. Ohno Construction Company
owned the property until 2021, when it was purchased by Duke Realty for the current project.
3.3.3 Description of Surveyed Resources
Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue)
The 10349 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1923 in an
unknown architectural style. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these
features do not appear to be original. The building features a cross-gabled roof with a moderate
eave overhang and fascia and verge boards covering the eaves. The roof is covered in composite
shingles and the building is clad in stucco. The primary (west) façade of the building is side-
gabled and possesses a non-original, front-gabled, partial-width front porch (Plate 3.3–16). The
porch roof is supported by circular concrete columns that extend to ground level without a break
and feature a Mediterranean-style embellishment at the base. The columns do not possess a capital.
The main entrance to the residence is located within the front porch on the west façade. The main
entry consists of a non-original set of double wood-panel doors with oval-shaped, etched glass
lites in the upper half. The roofline north of the front porch on the west façade is angled at a higher
pitch than the roofline south of the front porch (Plates 3.3–17 and 3.3–18). One non-original,
aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding window is located on the west façade, south of the front
porch (see Plate 3.3–16). The dates of these modifications are unknown.
Between 1938 and 1953 (see Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–5), the rear of the building was expanded
with several flat-roofed additions (Plate 3.3–19). These additions were not constructed in any
specific architectural style and are covered in a rough stucco texture. Also between 1938 and
1953, a single-wide manufactured home was moved to the property. It features a side-gabled, low-
pitched roof and is clad in plywood siding. All windows have been replaced with vinyl-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows (Plate 3.3–20).
The detached garage and corrugated metal canopy located northeast of the residence and
south of the manufactured home were not constructed until after 1985 and do not meet the
minimum age threshold to be considered historic (Plate 3.3–21).
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–48
Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue)
The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style,
single-family residence. The building currently features a simple rectangular footprint with a
stucco exterior (Plate 3.3–22). Fenestration consists of aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows with snap-on muntins. The roof is front-gabled, has an extremely low, almost flat pitch
with a wide enclosed eave overhang, and is covered in rolled roofing. Aerial imagery from 1953
to 1962 (see Plates 3.3–5 and 3.3–11) indicates that the building was originally “L”-shaped, but
between 1977 and 1985 (Plate 3.3–12 and 3.3–13), the northwest corner was filled in, creating a
rectangle. A break in the roofline is present where the 1977 to 1985 addition meets the original
residence (Plate 3.3–23). The front entry, which consists of a set of double, solid wood-panel,
half-lite doors, is located in the 1977 to 1985 addition. It is unknown where the original front entry
was located. As the windows throughout the building match, including the window in the 1977 to
1985 addition, it is likely that all windows were replaced with the current windows after the 1977
to 1985 addition was completed.
A small wood shed is located immediately southeast of the residence and a modern RV
carport is located to the northeast (see Plates 3.3–22 and 3.3–23). Neither the shed nor the RV
carport are present on aerial imagery in 1985 (see Plate 3.3–13) and, as such, do not meet the
minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures.
Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue)
The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-
style, single-family residence. As evidenced by the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5), the
building originally featured a simple square footprint. The original portion of the building is front-
gabled with a moderate, unenclosed eave overhang. The roof is covered in composite shingles.
The exterior of the original portion of the building is covered in a smooth texture stucco; however,
narrow horizontal wood siding is present in the gable ends (Plate 3.3–24). Fenestration is not
original and consists of aluminum-framed, single-hung and horizontal-sliding windows (see Plate
3.3–24).
Between 1962 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–11), two additions were constructed
onto the building: a carport on the west façade of the building and a side-gabled building section
with T1-11 vertical wood siding on the western end of the south facade (Plate 3.3–25). The same
T1-11 siding was also added to the south façade of the original residence at an unknown date. A
patio cover was built in the “L” created by the addition and original portion of the building between
1962 and 1966.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–53
Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue)
The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-
family residence with an attached garage. The building currently features a simple rectangular
footprint with primarily a stucco exterior (Plate 3.3–26). The southern portion of the west façade
features horizontal wood siding in the gable end, vertical wood siding on the upper portion, and a
brick wainscot on the lower portion (Plate 3.3–27). Fenestration throughout the residence consists
of non-original, vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The roof is cross hipped with a gable-
on-hip feature at the north end and a front-facing gable on the southern end. Overall, the roof is a
medium pitch with a wide enclosed eave overhang and is covered in composite shingles (Plate
3.3–28). The garage door is non-original, aluminum, segmented, and automatic. A brick chimney,
which does not appear original, is present on the south façade (Plate 3.3–29).
Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue)
The single-family residence at 16310 Boyle Avenue was constructed in 1945, likely in the
Transitional Ranch style. The building currently features a simple rectangular footprint with a
non-original, extremely coarse stucco exterior (Plates 3.3–30 and 3.3–31). Fenestration
throughout the residence consists of non-original, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows.
The roof is cross-gabled with the side-gabled portion facing Boyle Avenue and a rear-facing gable
on the north façade (Plates 3.3–32 and 3.3–33). The roof is covered in composite shingles and
possesses a minimal eave overhang. A detached garage with a gabled roof is present at the rear of
the building. Aerial imagery indicates that the garage was constructed by 1953 and may be original
to the property (see Plate 3.3–5). The doors on the detached garage are two large, solid boards on
hinges rather than typical doors. A corrugated metal carport is present in the “L” created by the
rear-facing gable and the garage. The carport was added after 1985 and does not meet the
minimum age threshold to be considered historic.
Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue)
The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the
Craftsman architectural style. The building currently features a complex floorplan with several
cross-gabled building sections extending off the main, rectangular section of the residence (Plates
3.3–34 and 3.3–35). However, only the north and west gables are original. Between 1959 and
1962 (see Plates 3.3–11 and 3.3–36), a gabled addition was constructed onto the east façade of the
building and a shed-roofed addition onto the south facade (see Plate 3.3–35).
Original windows were wood-framed and double-hung. Currently, fenestration throughout
the residence consists of non-original, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in different-
sized openings that were modified between 2008 and 2012 (Plates 3.3–37 and 3.3–38). The
window on the north façade replaced a non-original, sliding glass door with two side lites that was
installed prior to 2007 (Plate 3.3–39). The previous window sizes are visible in the stucco as larger
squares around the windows.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–68
Although a garage was present in 1933, the current detached garage was not added until
sometime between 1938 and 1953 (see Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–5). The current garage features a low-
pitched, hipped roof with a wide enclosed eave overhang. The garage has a single bay and a double
bay. Both garage doors are non-original, segmented, and aluminum (Plate 3.3–40).
Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue)
The 16326 Boyle Avenue property consists of three separate residences constructed
between 1930 and 1985. The southernmost residence was constructed in 1930 and is first visible
in aerial photographs in 1933 (see Plate 3.3–2). The building was constructed in an unknown style
as a simple, side-gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Between 1938 and 1953 (see
Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–5), a front-gabled addition was constructed onto the western half of the north
façade (Plate 3.3–41). In 2006, the building was clad in a rough texture stucco and featured rolled
roofing and a small front porch with a shed roof supported by 4x4-inch posts. Fenestration in 2006
consisted of a mixture of wood-framed, single-hung and horizontal-sliding windows and
aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. Between 2006 and 2007, a gabled roof was added
to the front porch and all windows were replaced with new, larger, aluminum-framed, horizontal-
sliding windows with snap-on muntins (Plate 3.3–42). Thick wood trim and windowsills were
added to each of the windows. Also between 2006 and 2007, the stucco was refinished with a
heavier texture and composite shingles were added to the roof (Plates 3.3–43 and 3.3–44).
The residence north of the 1930 residence was constructed between 1962 and 1966 in a
simple Ranch style (see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–11). The side-gabled building is covered in a sand
texture stucco. The roof features a moderate eave overhang with a slight extension of the main
roof over the front entrance on the west façade. The roof is clad in composite shingles. The 1962
to 1966 residence features newer aluminum-framed sliding windows with thick wood trim and
windowsills that match those on the 1930 residence, indicating that they were likely added between
2006 and 2007 (Plate 3.3–45). The only difference is that windows on the 1962 to 1966 residence
do not feature snap-on muntins.
The northernmost residence is a small, flat-roofed, manufactured home (Plate 3.3–46) that
was constructed between 1977 and 1985 (see Plates 3.3–12 and 3.3–13). The building does not
meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic and is not considered a contributor to
Site Temp-7.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–76
Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue)
The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled,
single-family residence in an unknown style. The building is first visible in a 1933 aerial
photograph (see Plate 3.3–2). Between 1977 and 1985 (see Plates 3.3–12 and 3.3–13), a small
side-gabled addition was constructed onto the west façade of the building and a shed-roofed
addition was constructed onto the north façade (Plate 3.3–47). The side-gabled addition was
removed between 2012 and 2018 (Plates 3.3–48 and 3.3–49), but the shed-roofed addition is still
present (Plates 3.3–50 to 3.3–52). When the side-gabled addition was removed, windows on the
west façade of the shed-roofed addition were updated to more modern, aluminum-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows than those present on the rest of the building (see Plate 3.3–52).
In 2012, the building featured a wood wainscot and trim around non-original, aluminum-
framed windows and the non-original, solid wood-panel front door. When the property was
remodeled in 2018, the wainscot and trim were removed. In addition, an uncovered concrete porch
was added to the south façade, which features a set of concrete steps on the west side and a concrete
ramp on the east. A simple wood railing supported by approximately four-foot-high, 4x4-inch
posts is present along the perimeter of the ramp and concrete slab (Plate 3.3–53).
3.3.4 Significance Evaluations
CEQA guidelines (Section 15064.5) address archaeological and historic resources, noting
that physical changes that would demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those
characteristics that convey the historic significance of the resource and justify its listing on
inventories of historic resources are typically considered significant impacts. Because demolition
of the buildings within the project would require approval from the City of Fontana as part of the
proposed project, CEQA eligibility criteria were used to evaluate the historic buildings. Therefore,
criteria for listing on the CRHR were used to measure the significance of the resources.
Integrity Evaluation
When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical
identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of
construction. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly
relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while
condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances,
integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if a resource
is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then
the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–84
In order to determine whether or not the buildings are eligible for listing, CRHR eligibility
criteria were used. Furthermore, BFSA based the review upon the recommended criteria listed in
the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
(Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). This review is based upon the evaluation of integrity of the
buildings followed by the assessment of distinctive characteristics.
1. Integrity of Location [refers to] the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity
of location was assessed by reviewing historical records and aerial photographs in order
to determine if the buildings had always existed at their present locations or if they had
been moved, rebuilt, or their footprints significantly altered. Historical research
revealed that all nine historic buildings located within the project were constructed in
their current locations between 1923 and 1966, and therefore, retain integrity of
location.
2. Integrity of Design [refers to] the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the buildings and any
architectural features present.
a. Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue): The 10349 Oleander Avenue single-
family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It
currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do
not appear to be original. The changes made to the building since its initial
construction include: construction of a front-gabled front porch with
Mediterranean-style influences; replacement of the original shingles;
replacement of original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows; and construction of rear additions that increased the square footage
of the building over 100 percent. Because the original form, plan, space,
structure, and style of the property have not been retained, and the building no
longer conveys the appearance of a 1923 residence of any style, the 10349
Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of design.
b. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue): The 10367 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence. The
changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction
of an addition on the primary façade that changed the footprint of the building
from “L”-shaped to rectangular; relocation of the front entry and installation of
non-original double doors; and replacement of all original windows. Because
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–85
the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property have not been
retained, and the northern half of the primary façade is not original, the 10367
Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of design.
c. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue): The 10375 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family
residence. As evidenced by the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5), the
building originally featured a simple square footprint. The changes made to the
building since its initial construction include: construction of a carport onto the
west façade; construction of a side-gabled addition onto the western end of the
south façade; infilling of the area between the original structure and the side-
gabled addition with a covered patio; replacement of some original exterior
cladding with T1-11 siding; and replacement of original windows with
aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. Because the original form,
plan, space, structure, and style of the property have not been retained, the
10375 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of design.
d. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue): The 10475 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-family residence with an
attached garage. Modifications made to the building since its initial
construction include replacement of all original windows with vinyl-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows and replacement of the original garage door. These
modifications did not alter the original form, plan, space, structure, or style of
the property and, as such, the 10475 Oleander Avenue building retains integrity
of design.
e. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue): The 16310 Boyle Avenue building was
constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style. Modifications made
to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original
windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and replacement
of the original garage door. These modifications did not alter the original form,
plan, space, structure, or style of the property and, as such, the 16310 Boyle
Avenue building retains integrity of design.
f. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue): The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family
residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style.
Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include:
construction of a gabled addition onto the east façade of the building and a shed-
roofed addition onto the south façade; replacement of all original wood-framed,
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–86
double-hung windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in
different sized openings; and replacement of the original detached garage. As
these modifications altered the original form, plan, space, structure, and style
of the property, the 16321 Boyle Avenue building does not retain integrity of
design.
g. Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue): The 16326 Boyle Avenue property
consists of two historic residences constructed in 1930 and between 1962 and
1966, as well a non-historic manufactured home constructed between 1977 and
1985. The 1930 residence was constructed in an unknown style as a simple,
side-gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Modifications made to
the building since its construction include: a front-gabled addition built onto the
western portion of the north façade; construction of a gabled roof over the front
porch; replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-
sliding windows with snap-on muntins; the addition of thick wood trim and
windowsills to each window; restuccoing with a heavier texture; and
replacement of the rolled roofing present in 2006 with composite shingles. As
these modifications altered the original form, plan, space, structure, and style
of the property, the 1930 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue does not retain
integrity of design.
The 1962 to 1966 residence was constructed as a simple, side-gabled, Ranch-
style building. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction
include replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows and the addition of thick wood trim and
windowsills to each window. These modifications did not alter the original
form, plan, space, structure, or style of the property and, as such, the 1962 to
1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue retains integrity of design.
h. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue): The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was
constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an
unknown style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction
include: construction of a shed-roofed addition on the north façade; replacement
of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding versions;
removal of wainscoting and window trim; and construction of an uncovered
concrete porch with steps, a ramp, and a wood railing on the primary (south)
façade. As these modifications altered the original form, plan, space, structure,
and style of the property through the introduction of additional square footage
and removal of stylistic elements, the 16398 Boyle Avenue building does not
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–87
retain integrity of design.
3. Integrity of Setting [refers to] the physical environment of a historic property. Setting
includes elements such as topographic features, open space, viewshed, landscape,
vegetation, and artificial features (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of setting
was assessed by inspecting the elements of the property, which include topographic
features, open space, views, landscape, vegetation, man-made features, and
relationships between buildings and other features. The historic buildings located
within the boundaries of the project were constructed between 1923 and 1966. During
that time, the surrounding area consisted of small, rural ranches. Aerial photographs
indicate that the surrounding neighborhood began to change circa the 1990s, when
much of the agricultural land was replaced with small-scale industrial storage facilities.
Much of the ground was cleared and covered with gravel and industrial structures were
added to several of the larger parcels. Currently, the surrounding area consists of a
scatter of original residences, modern residences, small commercial or industrial
structures, and storage lots. Because the area is no longer recognizable as a rural
farming community and no longer retains the same open space, viewshed, landscape,
vegetation, or general built environment, the property 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
configuration to form a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
materials was assessed by determining the presence or absence of original building
materials, as well as the possible introduction of materials that may have altered the
architectural design of the buildings.
a. Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue): The 10349 Oleander Avenue single-
family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It
currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do
not appear to be original. The changes made to the building since its initial
construction include: construction of a front-gabled front porch with
Mediterranean-style influences; replacement of the original shingles;
replacement of original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows; and construction of rear additions that increased the square footage
of the building over 100 percent. Because many of the original building
materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the
modification of the front porch, roof, windows, and additions, the 10349
Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–88
b. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue): The 10367 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence. The
changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction
of an addition on the primary façade that changed the footprint of the building
from “L”-shaped to rectangular; relocation of the front entry and installation of
non-original double doors; and replacement of all original windows. Because
many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new
materials were used in the modification the roof, windows, and primary façade
addition, the 10367 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of
materials.
c. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue): The 10375 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family
residence. As evidenced by the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5), the
building originally featured a simple square footprint. The changes made to the
building since its initial construction include construction of a carport onto the
west façade; construction of a side-gabled addition onto the western end of the
south façade; infilling of the area between the original structure and the side-
gabled addition with a covered patio; replacement of some original exterior
cladding with T1-11 siding; and replacement of original windows with
aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. Because many of the original
building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the
modification of the additions, the covered patio, the exterior cladding, and the
windows, the 10375 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of
materials.
d. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue): The 10475 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-family residence with an
attached garage. Modifications made to the building since its initial
construction include replacement of all original windows with vinyl-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows and replacement of the original garage door. Due
to the replacement of the original windows and garage door, the 10475 Oleander
Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials.
e. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue): The 16310 Boyle Avenue single-family
residence was constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style.
Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include
replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding
windows and replacement of the original garage door. Due to the replacement
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–89
of the original windows and garage door, the 16310 Boyle Avenue building
does not retain integrity of materials.
f. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue): The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family
residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style.
Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include:
construction of a gabled addition onto the east façade of the building and a shed-
roofed addition onto the south façade; replacement of all original wood-framed,
double-hung windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in
different sized openings; and replacement of the original detached garage.
Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and
new materials were used in the additions, modification of the windows, and
replacement of the original garage, the 16321 Boyle Avenue building does not
retain integrity of materials.
g. Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue): The 16326 Boyle Avenue property
consists of two historic residences constructed in 1930 and between 1962 and
1966, as well as a non-historic residence constructed between 1977 and 1985.
The 1930 residence was constructed in an unknown style as a simple, side-
gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Modifications made to the
building since its construction include: a front-gabled addition built onto the
western portion of the north façade; construction of a gabled roof over the front
porch; replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-
sliding windows with snap-on muntins; the addition of thick wood trim and
windowsills to each window; restuccoing with a heavier texture; and
replacement of the rolled roofing present in 2006 with composite shingles.
Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and
new materials were used in the modification of the front porch and windows
and the construction of additions, the 1930 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue
does not retain integrity of materials
The 1962 to 1966 residence was constructed as a simple, side-gabled, Ranch-
style building. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction
include replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed,
horizontal-sliding windows and the addition of thick wood trim and
windowsills to each window. Due to the replacement of the original windows
and addition of trim and windowsills, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle
Avenue does not retain integrity of materials.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–90
h. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue): The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was
constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an
unknown style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction
include: construction of a shed-roofed addition on the north façade; replacement
of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding versions;
removal of wainscoting and window trim; and construction of an uncovered
concrete porch with steps, a ramp, and a wood railing on the primary (south)
façade. Because many of the original building materials were masked or
removed and new materials were used in the construction of the additions and
the modifications to the windows, exterior stylistic elements, and front porch,
the 16398 Boyle Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials.
5. Integrity of Workmanship [refers to] the physical evidence of the labor and skill of
a particular culture or people during any given period in history (Andrus and
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 all of the historic buildings within the project
appears to have been average. All of the buildings have been substantially modified
since their initial construction and none exhibit elements or features representative of
the labor or skill of a particular culture or people. Therefore, none of the buildings
have ever possessed integrity of workmanship.
6. Integrity of Feeling [refers to] a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic
sense of a particular period of time (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of feeling
was assessed by evaluating whether or not the resources’ features, in combination with
their setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during the period of construction.
As noted previously, the integrity of setting for all of the buildings has been lost. In
addition, the modifications made to the buildings and surroundings since their original
construction negatively impacted their ability to convey their historic dates of
construction. Therefore, none of the buildings retain integrity of feeling.
7. Integrity of Association [refers to] the direct link between an important historic event
or person and a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
association was assessed by evaluating the resources’ data or information and their
ability to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the Fontana area or
the state of California. Historical research indicates that none of the buildings are
associated with any significant persons or events. None of the individuals who owned
or lived in the buildings were found to be significant and no known important events
occurred at the property. Therefore, the buildings have never possessed integrity of
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–91
association.
Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project, sites Temp-1, Temp-2, Temp-3, Temp-6,
Temp-7, and Temp-8 were determined to only retain integrity of location. Sites Temp-4 and
Temp-5 were determined to retain integrity of location and design. None of the sites retain
integrity of setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.
CRHR Evaluation
For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, the resource must be found
significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:
• CRHR Criterion 1:
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
It was discovered through historical research that no significant events could be
associated with the buildings located within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project.
Because the property could not be associated with any specific historic event, the
buildings are not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 1.
• CRHR Criterion 2:
It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Historical research revealed that the buildings located within the Slover and Cypress
Avenue Project are not associated with any persons important in our past. Therefore,
the buildings are not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 2.
• CRHR Criterion 3:
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses
high artistic values.
o Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue): The 10349 Oleander Avenue single-
family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It
currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do
not appear to be original. The Craftsman architectural style was the dominant
style for smaller houses built throughout the country from approximately 1905
to the early 1920s. Originating in southern California, the style quickly spread
throughout the country via pattern books and popular magazines (McAlester
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–92
2015):
Craftsman houses were inspired primarily by the work of two
California brothers – Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather
Greene – who practiced together in Pasadena from 1893 to 1914.
About 1903 they began to design simple Craftsman-type
bungalows; by 1909 they had designed and executed several
exceptional landmark examples that have been called the
“ultimate bungalows.” Several influences – the English Arts and
Crafts movement, an interest in oriental wooden architecture,
and their early training in the manual arts – appear to have led
the Greenes to design and build these intricately detailed
buildings. These and similar residences were given extensive
publicity in such magazines as the Western Architect, The
Architect, House Beautiful, Good Housekeeping, Architectural
Record, Country Life in America, and Ladies’ Home Journal,
thus familiarizing the rest of the nation with the style. As a
result, a flood of pattern books appeared, offering plans for
Craftsman bungalows, some even offered completely pre-cut
packages of lumber and detailing to be assembled by local labor.
Through these vehicles, the one-story Craftsman house quickly
became the most popular and fashionable smaller house in the
country. High-style interpretations are rare except in California,
where they have been called the Western Stick style. One-story
vernacular examples are often called simply bungalows or the
Bungaloid style. (McAlester 2015:568–578)
The general Craftsman style usually features a low-pitched, gabled roof with
wide, unenclosed, overhanging eaves with multiple roof planes. Sometimes,
examples of this style also possess a hipped roof. The roof rafters of both roof
styles are generally exposed, with decorative beams and knee braces added
under the gables. Examples of the Craftsman style almost always exhibit a
porch on the front façade that can either be full- or partial-width, the roof of
which is supported by tapered, square columns that extend to ground level
without break. Many examples use natural materials such as cobblestones,
clinker brick, wood shingles, and boulders, which are often used in combination
with clapboard siding or stucco (McAlester 2015). In many cases, the line
between the natural landscape and the beginnings of the structure is blurred in
the more elaborate examples of the style. This is achieved through the use of
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–93
natural materials and integrated landscaping. More simple, modest variations
use the same materials but combine them in a much more restrained
fashion. The home is given a natural, airy feeling through the use of large
numbers of windows that vary in size and shape. Foundations are often sloped
and walls are clad with shingles, stucco, or shiplap siding. Often, brick and
stone are used on chimneys, foundations, and as decorative elements (Crawford
2006).
Although the 10349 Oleander Avenue building does possess a low-pitched,
gabled roof with wide, overhanging eaves, the eaves have been enclosed with
fascia boards and it does not possess exposed beams or triangular knee braces
typical of the Craftsman style. While the building possesses a partial-length
front porch, it is not original and the supports themselves are Greek Revival in
style, set atop a Mediterranean-style base. The building also does not utilize
any natural materials such as cobblestones, clinker brick, wood shingles, or
boulders in combination with the clapboard siding and stucco. Because none
of these materials were utilized in the construction of the building and it does
not have integrated landscaping, the line between the natural landscape and the
building is not blurred.
While the residence does possess some Craftsman characteristics, it does not
possess enough to be considered a good example of the style. As such, the
building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,
or method of construction. In addition, all original wood-framed windows have
been replaced with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows, and
numerous additions have been constructed off the east façade of the building.
All of these modifications have negatively affected the building’s integrity of
design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the building is not
considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous
materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue): The 10367 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence.
Contemporary-style buildings generally have exposed roof beams, are built of
natural materials (stone, wood, brick, or concrete block), feature a broad
expanse of uninterrupted wall surface typically on the front façade, have a
recessed or obscured entry door, and are asymmetrical (McAlester 2015). The
Contemporary style was most popular between circa 1945 and 1990:
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–94
The Contemporary style was favored by most American
architects from about 1945 to 1965, when it filled architectural
journals and dominated awards. While Ranch-style houses
proliferated in most builder subdivisions, a few successful
developers built Contemporary subdivisions … In the late 1960s
the Contemporary style began to lose popularity (McAlester
2015:632)
Identifying features of the Contemporary style, as provided by McAlester
(2015) include:
Low-pitched gabled roof (sometimes flat) with widely
overhanging eaves; roof beams commonly exposed; windows
generally present in gable ends (or just below roof line in non-
gabled facades); built with natural materials (wood, stone, brick,
or occasionally concrete block); broad expanse of uninterrupted
wall surface typically on front façade; entry door may be
recessed or obscured; asymmetrical. (McAlester 2015:629)
The 10367 Oleander Avenue residence only possesses two of the seven features
listed above: low-pitched roof with widely overhanging eaves and
asymmetrical façade.
In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also
distinguishes between five principal subtypes of the Contemporary architectural
style, including Front-Gabled Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, Gabled-Roof
Variations, Flat Roof, and Butterfly and Slant Roof. The 10367 Oleander
Avenue residence is best classified as the Front-Gabled Roof subtype.
McAlester (2015:629) states:
This subtype includes a broad range of simple front-gabled
forms. These are ideal for showing off triangular gable-end
windows that indicate a high “vaulted” ceiling inside. Two
variations are common: a broad one-story form with a very low-
pitched roof (popularized by California developer Joseph
Eichler) and an asymmetrical gable front often found on Split-
Level houses (nicknamed the “wounded dove”).
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–95
While the 10367 Oleander Avenue residence does possess a “very low-pitched
roof,” the building does not exhibit a broad form, and the northern portion of
the primary façade is not original to the building.
Although built within the circa 1945 to 1990 period of significance for
Contemporary-style buildings, the 10367 Oleander Avenue residence only
possesses two of the seven character-defining features associated with the
Contemporary style, and therefore, it is not considered a representative example
of a type (Contemporary architecture). In addition, although it possesses
characteristics of the Front-Gabled Roof subtype, which is associated with
California, the northern portion of the front (primary) façade of the building is
not original. As such, the building is not representative of a region (California).
The method of construction is not unique, does not use indigenous materials,
and the building is not known to have been designed or built by an important
creative individual. Therefore, the 10367 Oleander Avenue building is not
eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-3 (10375 Slover Avenue): The 10375 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family
residence.
The Minimal Traditional house was “the little house that could.”
It was the small house that could be built with [Federal Housing
Administration] FHA-insured loans in the midst of the Great
Depression between 1935 and 1940; the house that could be built
quickly to accommodate millions of relocating World War II
production-plant workers (1941-1945); and the house that could
be built rapidly during the late 1940s in large post-World War II
developments (1946-1949). These late-1940s developments
were necessary to begin to fulfill the wartime GI Bill promise
that every returning serviceman would be able to purchase a
home. (McAlester 2015:588)
Identifying features of the Minimal Traditional style, as provided by McAlester
(2015) include:
Low- or intermediate-pitched roof, more often gabled; small
house, generally one story in height; roof eaves usually have
little or no overhang; double-hung windows, typically multi-
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–96
pane or 1/1; minimal amounts of added architectural detail;
rarely has dormers. (McAlester 2015:587)
The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed at the end of the circa
1935 to 1950 period of significance for Minimal Traditional-style buildings and
originally possessed all six features listed above. However, the carport, side-
gabled and covered porch additions, and the replacement of the original
windows negatively impacted the residence’s integrity of design, materials,
feeling, and workmanship.
Although the building was likely originally representative of a type (Minimal
Traditional architecture) and period (circa 1935 to 1950), the subsequent
modifications negatively impacted its original integrity. In addition, as the
Minimal Traditional style was popular across the United States and the building
was not constructed using any unique construction techniques, the 10375
Oleander Avenue building is also not representative of a region (southern
California) or method of construction, was not constructed using indigenous
materials, and is not known to have been designed or built by an important
creative individual. Therefore, the 10375 Oleander Avenue building is not
eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
• Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue): The 10475 Oleander Avenue building
was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-family residence with an
attached garage.
The Ranch style originated in southern California in the mid-
1930s, after a few earlier precursors … During the decades of
the 1950s and 1960s it became by far the most popular house
style built throughout the country. Often located in large
subdivisions, post-World War II Ranch-house suburbs form a
dominant part of many American cities – particularly those that
grew in the postwar Sunbelt Boom of the 1950s and 1960s, such
as Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.
(McAlester 2015:602)
Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015)
include:
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–97
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597)
The 10475 Oleander Avenue residence possesses all seven features listed
above.
In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also
distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style,
including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross-
Gabled Roof. The 10475 Oleander Avenue residence is best classified as the
Cross-Hipped Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:597–598) states:
About 40 percent of one-story Ranch houses have a cross-hipped
roof. Typically these are one-story houses with a long roof ridge
running parallel to the front façade with a single hipped
extension. Occasionally a second hipped extension is also
present.
Sometimes the cross-gabled and cross-hipped types have a
combination roof with a front hip on a side-gabled roof or,
conversely, a front-facing gable on a hipped roof.
While the 10475 Oleander Avenue residence does possess a cross-hipped roof,
it also features “a front-facing gable on a hipped roof.” Although the building
was originally representative of a type (Ranch architecture) and period (1935 to
1975), the subsequent modifications to the structure and the surrounding area
have negatively impacted its original integrity of setting, materials,
workmanship, and feeling. In addition, as the Ranch style was popular across
the United States and the building was not constructed using any unique
construction techniques, the 10475 Oleander Avenue building is also not
representative of a region (southern California) or method of construction, was
not constructed using indigenous materials, is not known to have been designed
or built by an important creative individual, and has never possessed integrity
of association. Therefore, due to a lack of original integrity, the 10475 Oleander
Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–98
o Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue): The 16310 Boyle Avenue building was
constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style, during the circa 1935
to 1975 period during which the Ranch style was most popular:
The Ranch style originated in southern California in the mid-
1930s, after a few earlier precursors … During the decades of
the 1950s and 1960s it became by far the most popular house
style built throughout the country. Often located in large
subdivisions, post-World War II Ranch-house suburbs form a
dominant part of many American cities – particularly those that
grew in the postwar Sunbelt Boom of the 1950s and 1960s, such
as Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.
(McAlester 2015)
Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015)
include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main
façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally
present; asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597)
The 16310 Boyle Avenue residence only possesses three of the seven features
listed above: built low to the ground; low-pitched roof without dormers; and
moderate eave overhang.
In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also
distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style,
including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross-
Gabled Roof. The 16310 Boyle Avenue residence is best classified as the
Cross-Gabled Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:598) states that “about 40
percent of one-story Ranch houses have a broad side-gabled form, with a long
roof ridge parallel to the street, and a single-prominent, front facing gable
extension.” While the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence does resemble this form
in the way the gables are oriented, the building does not possess the “broad one-
story shape” with a “front facing gable extension.” Rather, the gable is rear-
facing.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–99
Because the building does not have a wide eave overhang or large picture
window, but is cross-gabled, it more closely resembles a Transitional Ranch-
style residence. According to McAlester (2015):
Early, small examples of the Ranch [style] are sometimes called
Ranchette, Minimal Ranch, or Transitional Ranch. These
generally lack the broader overhang of later examples and many
of the elaborations that become common as house size increased.
The line between Minimal Traditional and Ranchette is a matter
of judgement. However, the intent was likely a Ranch house if
a picture window and other Ranch elaboration is present (such
as a corner window or wall cladding that differs at the base of
the windows). While Ranch houses commonly have a broader
profile than Minimal Traditionals, neighborhoods platted with
narrow lots before World War II may have Ranch-style houses
adapted to these lots …
During the 1940s, it [the Ranch-style home] was only one of the
small house types built under FHA guidelines. As the financial
controls that mandated very small houses were gradually lifted
following World War II, the Ranch style began to gain in
popularity …
The size of a Ranch [home] was quite small in the late 1940s,
but the typical size gradually increased as builders actively
lobbied for higher loan limits and FHA guidelines were revised
upward. (McAlester 2015)
Although built within the 1935 to 1975 period of significance for Ranch-style
buildings, the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence only possesses three of the seven
character-defining features associated with the Ranch style, and therefore, it is
not considered a representative example of a type (Ranch architecture). Further,
while Transitional Ranch-style residences, which are associated with FHA
guidelines for small houses, were primarily constructed prior to or during World
War II, the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence was constructed in 1945 and the
Peirsons are not known to have received any FHA funds for its construction.
The building was, however, constructed on a narrow lot, which likely accounts
for its lack of a broad footprint. Regardless, the building is not representative
of a period (World War II) due the fact that the Peirsons already owned
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–100
residences on neighboring parcels. As the Ranch architectural style was
popular across the United States and the residence was not built using any
unique construction techniques specific to southern California, the 16310 Boyle
Avenue residence is also not representative of a region (southern California) or
method of construction and was likely designed and built by Byron Peirson,
who is not known to have been an important creative individual. Therefore, the
16310 Boyle Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue): The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family
residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style.
As stated previously, the Craftsman style was the dominant style for smaller
houses built throughout the country from approximately 1905 to the early
1920s. Originating in southern California, the style quickly spread throughout
the country via pattern books and popular magazines (McAlester 2015):
Craftsman houses were inspired primarily by the work of two
California brothers – Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather
Greene – who practiced together in Pasadena from 1893 to 1914.
About 1903 they began to design simple Craftsman-type
bungalows; by 1909 they had designed and executed several
exceptional landmark examples that have been called the
“ultimate bungalows.” Several influences – the English Arts and
Crafts movement, an interest in oriental wooden architecture,
and their early training in the manual arts – appear to have led
the Greenes to design and build these intricately detailed
buildings. These and similar residences were given extensive
publicity in such magazines as the Western Architect, The
Architect, House Beautiful, Good Housekeeping, Architectural
Record, Country Life in America, and Ladies’ Home Journal,
thus familiarizing the rest of the nation with the style. As a
result, a flood of pattern books appeared, offering plans for
Craftsman bungalows, some even offered completely pre-cut
packages of lumber and detailing to be assembled by local labor.
Through these vehicles, the one-story Craftsman house quickly
became the most popular and fashionable smaller house in the
country. High-style interpretations are rare except in California,
where they have been called the Western Stick style. One-story
vernacular examples are often called simply bungalows or the
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–101
Bungaloid style. (McAlester 2015:568–578)
The general Craftsman style usually features a low-pitched, gabled roof with
wide, unenclosed, overhanging eaves with multiple roof planes. Sometimes,
examples of this style also possess a hipped roof. The roof rafters of both roof
styles are generally exposed, with decorative beams and knee braces added
under the gables. Examples of the Craftsman style almost always exhibit a
porch on the front façade that can either be full- or partial-width, the roof of
which is supported by tapered, square columns that extend to ground level
without break. Many examples use natural materials such as cobblestones,
clinker brick, wood shingles, and boulders, which are often used in combination
with clapboard siding or stucco (McAlester 2015). In many cases, the line
between the natural landscape and the beginnings of the structure is blurred in
the more elaborate examples of the style. This is achieved through the use of
natural materials and integrated landscaping. More simple, modest variations
use the same materials but combine them in a much more restrained
fashion. The home is given a natural, airy feeling through the use of large
numbers of windows that vary in size and shape. Foundations are often sloped
and walls are clad with shingles, stucco, or shiplap siding. Often, brick and
stone are used on chimneys, foundations, and as decorative elements (Crawford
2006).
Although the 16321 Boyle Avenue building does possess a low-pitched, gabled
roof with wide, overhanging eaves and multiple roof planes, it also possesses a
shed-style roof on the southern half of the building, and the eastern gable is not
original. In addition, the roof does not possess exposed beams or triangular
knee braces typical of the Craftsman style. While the building possesses a
partial-length front porch, it is located under the main roof of the building rather
than extending forward from the primary façade and does not feature tapered
columns, as is customary in Craftsman-style residences. The building also does
not utilize any natural materials such as cobblestones, clinker brick, wood
shingles, or boulders in combination with the stucco and does not feature a
battered foundation. Because none of these materials were utilized in the
construction of the building and it does not have integrated landscaping, the line
between the natural landscape and the building is not blurred.
While the residence does possess some Craftsman characteristics, it does not
possess enough to be considered a good example of the style. As such, the
building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–102
or method of construction. In addition, all original wood-framed windows have
been replaced with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in different-
sized openings, and additions have been constructed off the east and south
façades. All of these modifications have negatively affected the building’s
integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the
building is not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using
indigenous materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue): The 16326 Boyle Avenue property
consists of two historic residences constructed in 1930 and between 1962 and
1966, as well as a non-historic manufactured home constructed between 1977
and 1985. The 1930 residence was constructed in an unknown style as a simple,
side-gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Due to the numerous
modifications that have occurred to the building since its construction in 1930,
the original architectural style of the building is unknown, and it currently does
not resemble any specific style (see integrity analysis above). As such, the
building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,
or method of construction. In addition, a front-gabled addition was built onto
the western portion of the north façade; a gabled roof was added over the front
porch; all original windows were replaced with aluminum-framed, horizontal-
sliding windows with snap-on muntins; thick wood trim and window sills were
added to each window; the building was restuccoed with a heavier texture
stucco; and the original roofing was replaced with composite shingles. All of
these modifications have negatively affected the building’s integrity of design,
materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the 1930 building at 16326
Boyle Avenue is not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed
using indigenous materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 3.
The 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue was constructed as a simple,
side-gabled, Ranch-style, single-family residence. As stated previously,
identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015)
include:
Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched
roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–103
overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered
under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main façade
(faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally present;
asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597)
The 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue only possesses three of the
seven features listed above: built low to the ground; low-pitched roof without
dormers; and moderate eave overhang.
In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also
distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style,
including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross-
Gabled Roof. The residence is best classified as the Side-Gabled Roof subtype.
McAlester (2015:597) states that “about 10 percent of one-story Ranch houses
have side-gabled roofs with a long roof ridge running parallel to the front
façade. These are more common in rural areas and in neighborhoods of smaller
houses.”
Although built within the 1935 to 1975 period of significance for Ranch-style
buildings, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue only possesses
three of the seven character-defining features associated with the Ranch style
and, therefore, it is not considered a representative example of a type (Ranch
architecture). Further, while Transitional Ranch-style residences, which are
associated with FHA guidelines for small houses, were primarily constructed
prior to or during World War II, the residence was constructed in the 1960s and
could not have received World War II funds from the FHA for its construction.
Despite having been constructed on a shared lot, which likely accounts for its
lack of a broad footprint, the size of the building loses relevance if it is not
associated with the transition from the Minimal Traditional style to the Ranch
style. As the Ranch architectural style was popular across the United States and
the residence was not built using any unique construction techniques specific to
southern California, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue is also
not representative of a region (southern California) or method of construction
and is not known to have been designed or built by an important creative
individual. Therefore, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue is not
eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3.
o Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue): The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was
constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–104
unknown style. Although in 2006, the building possessed features that could
be associated with the Minimal Traditional or Ranch styles, the building was
constructed before either style was known to exist. As such, the building was
not originally designed in either of those styles and later modified to have
Ranch-style elements, such as the wainscot and window trim. As the building’s
original architectural style is unknown, it cannot be a representative example of
a type (architecture) or period. In addition, the building does not exhibit any
unique construction techniques (method of construction) associated with any
specific region, it does not utilize any indigenous materials, and it is not known
to have been designed or built by an important creative individual. Therefore,
the 16398 Boyle Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 3.
• CRHR Criterion 4:
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The research conducted for this study revealed that because the buildings located within
the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project are not associated with any significant persons
or events and were not constructed using unique or innovative methods of construction,
they likely cannot yield any additional information about the history of Fontana or the
state of California. Therefore, none of the buildings are eligible for designation under
CRHR Criterion 4.
3.4 Discussion/Summary
During the field survey, nine historic buildings were identified: Temp-1 (10349 Oleander
Avenue), Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue), Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10475
Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue), Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue), Temp-7
(16326 Boyle Avenue), and Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue). No other cultural resources were
observed during the survey. Sites Temp-1 to Temp-8 have been evaluated as not historically or
architecturally significant under any CEQA criteria due to a lack of association with any significant
persons or events and not being representative examples of any specific architectural style, period,
or region. Because none of the buildings are eligible for listing on the CRHR, no mitigation
measures are required for any future alterations or planned demolition of the buildings.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT
IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Resource Importance
The cultural resources survey of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project identified nine
historic buildings. Sites Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue), Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue),
Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16310 Boyle
Avenue), Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue), Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue), and Temp-8 (16398
Boyle Avenue) are not CEQA-significant or eligible for listing on the CRHR. The buildings have
been thoroughly recorded and no additional information can be derived from further analysis. The
northernmost residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue is manufactured home that was constructed
between 1977 and 1985. Since the building does not meet the minimum age threshold to be
considered historic, it is not considered a contributor to Site Temp-7.
4.2 Impact Identification
The proposed development of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project will include the
demolition of the nine historic buildings. However, the removal of these buildings as part of the
development of the property will not constitute an adverse impact because they have been
evaluated as not CEQA-significant and not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The potential does
still exist, however, that historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this
location since the 1920s. 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 Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES
AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed development will impact nine historic buildings; however, as these resources
are evaluated as lacking any further research potential, impacts have been determined to be not
significant. Based upon the evaluation of the buildings as lacking further research potential,
mitigation measures will not be required as a condition of approval for the project; however, a
MMRP is recommended because grading may expose undocumented and potentially significant
historic features or deposits associated with the historic occupation of the property since the 1920s.
Evidence of Native American use of this location prehistorically may also be discovered. Based
upon this potential, monitoring of grading is recommended to prevent the inadvertent destruction
of any potentially important cultural deposits that were not observed or detected during the current
cultural resources study. The monitoring program will include Native American observers only
in the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered.
5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Slover and Cypress Avenue Project will disturb eight nonsignificant historic resources
(Temp-1 to Temp-8) that do not require any mitigation measures. However, to mitigate potential
impacts to resources that have not yet been detected, a MMRP is recommended as a condition of
approval. In accordance with direction from the City of Fontana Planning Division, the following
guidance is presented as part of the MMRP condition:
• In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological or Native
American monitor, all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a
qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall assess the
discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the following
activities are initiated:
o If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate consultation between the qualified
archaeologist, the appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the City/project
applicant;
o Include the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural
resources investigations as soon as possible; and
o If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique
archaeological resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2
or a “tribal cultural resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section
21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–2
archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and
subsequent implementation.
The proposed MMRP tasks are detailed below.
During Grading
A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During Grading/Excavation/Trenching
1. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to
archaeological resources.
2. The principal investigator (PI) may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency
during construction requesting a modification to the monitoring program when a
field condition such as modern disturbance post-dating the previous
grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are
encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present.
B. Discovery Notification Process
1. In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or prehistoric, the
archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil-
disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or
grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to
overlay adjacent resources and immediately notify the Native American monitor
and client, as appropriate.
2. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless monitor is the PI) of the
discovery.
C. Determination of Significance
1. The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource. If human remains are
involved, the protocol provided in Section D, below, shall be followed.
a. The PI shall immediately notify the City of Fontana to discuss the significance
determination and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional
mitigation is required.
b. If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data
Recovery Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval from the City of
Fontana to implement that program. In the event that prehistoric deposits are
discovered, the ADRP should also be reviewed by the Native American
consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated before
ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–3
c. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City of
Fontana indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in
the final monitoring report. The letter shall also indicate that that no further
work is required.
D. Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can
be made regarding the provenance of the human remains; and the following procedures
as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and
the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be undertaken:
1. Notification
a. The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI, if the monitor is not qualified as
a PI.
b. The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of the San Bernardino County
Sheriff’s Department after consultation with the City of Fontana, either in
person or via telephone.
2. Isolate discovery site
a. Work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a
determination can be made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation with the PI
concerning the provenance of the remains.
b. The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a
field examination to determine the provenance.
c. If a field examination is not warranted, the sheriff-coroner will determine, with
input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American
origin.
3. If Human Remains ARE determined to be Native American
a. The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, ONLY
the medical examiner can make this call.
b. The NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be
the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information.
c. The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the sheriff-coroner
has completed coordination to begin the consultation process in accordance
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–4
with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the State Health and
Safety Code.
d. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner
or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the
human remains and associated grave goods.
e. Disposition of Native American human remains will be determined between the
MLD and the PI, and, if:
i. The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD; OR
ii. The MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being
notified by the NAHC; OR
iii. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of
the MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC
fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner; THEN
iv. Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a
ground-disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that
additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally
appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains.
Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained
from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards.
Where the parties are unable to agree upon the appropriate treatment
measures, the human remains and grave goods buried with the Native
American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity.
4. If Human Remains are NOT Native American
a. The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and notify them of the historic-era
context of the burial.
b. The sheriff-coroner will determine the appropriate course of action with the PI
and city staff (PRC 5097.98).
c. If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and
conveyed to the City of Fontana. The decision for internment of the human
remains shall be made in consultation with City, the applicant/landowner, and
any known descendant group.
Post-Construction
A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report
1. The PI shall submit to the City of Fontana a draft monitoring report (even if
negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–5
the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological
monitoring program (with appropriate graphics).
a. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the
ADRP shall be included in the draft monitoring report.
b. Recording sites with the State of California DPR shall be the responsibility
of the PI, including the recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B)
any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the
archaeological monitoring program.
2. The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report to the City of Fontana for
approval, including any changes or clarifications requested by the City.
B. Handling of Artifacts
1. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are
cleaned and cataloged.
2. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify
function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal
material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as
appropriate.
3. The cost for curation is the responsibility of the property owner.
C. Curation of Artifacts
1. To be determined.
D. Final Monitoring Report(s)
1. The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City of Fontana
and any interested parties.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project was
directed by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted
by field archaeologist David Grabski. The report text was prepared by Jillian Conroy, Jennifer
Stropes, and Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Jillian Conroy. Technical editing
and report production were conducted by Elena Goralogia. The SCCIC at CSU Fullerton provided
the archaeological records search information and the NAHC provided the SLF search results.
Archival research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the Fontana Historical Society, the
Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County
Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public Library.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
1952 Newspaper Obituary for Mrs. Jesse Weirich. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2000 California, U.S., Death Index 1940-1997 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2002 1930 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2004 1900 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2006 U.S., Obituary Collection, 1930-Current (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007a Missouri, U.S., Marriage Records, 1805-2002 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007b Minnesota Territorial and State Censuses, 1849-1905 (database online). Provo, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2008 Cook County, Illinois Marriage Index, 1930-1960 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2010a U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2010b U.S., Naturalization Records, 1840-1957 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2010c Cuyahoga County, Ohio, U.S., Marriage Records and Indexes, 1810-1973 (database
online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2011a U.S., Word War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 (database online). Lehi, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
2011b U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2011c Web: Tacoma, Washington, U.S., Obituary Index, 1882-2015 (database online). Provo,
UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2012a 1940 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2012b U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2012c Tennessee, U.S., Delayed Birth Records, 1869-1909 (database online). Provo, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2014 California, U.S., Federal Naturalization Records, 1843-1999 (database online). Lehi,
UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2015 Michigan, U.S., Marriage Records, 1867-1952 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2016a Ohio, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1774-1993 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2016b Kentucky, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1783-1965 (database online). Lehi, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2017a California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2017b Iowa, U.S., Births (series) 1880-1904, 1921-1944 and Delayed Births (series), 1856-
1940 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2022a Jesse Weirich (1889-1959) Family Tree. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2022b Caroline M. Staley Eichenberg (1899-1982) Family Tree. Ancestry.com Operations,
Inc.
Andrus, Patrick and Rebecca H. Shrimpton
2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin
No. 15. National Register of Historic Places.
Anicic, John Charles, Jr.
1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms
Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service.
2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina;
Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California.
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8), California, edited by R.F.
Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland,
California.
Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).
Big Bear Life
1959 Business Progress Noted. 5 August:10. Big Bear, California.
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
City of Fontana
2018 About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About
-The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018.
Cohen, K.M. and P.L. Gibbard
2011 Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years.
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on
Stratigraphy), Cambridge, England. Electronic document,
http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart-
v2011.jpg.pdf, accessed January 14, 2022.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Conford, Danial (editor)
1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and Oxford, California.
Curray, Joseph R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of
the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley.
Dutcher, L.C. and A.A. Garrett
1963 Geologic and hydrologic features of the San Bernardino area, California - with special
reference to underflow across the San Jacinto fault. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1419.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San
Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
Gallegos, Dennis
1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos
Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual
Papers 2(1).
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego
County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast,
edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Gunther, Jane D.
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside,
California.
Hall, William Hammond
1888 The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties: The Second Part of the Report of the State
Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation Question. State Office, J.D.
Young, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento.
Harris, Marvin
1991 Cultural Anthropology. HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, New York
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta
2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the
Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM
Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–6
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1–A19. Infotec Research,
Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and
Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
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.
Minnesota Official Marriage System (MOMS)
2022 Search for a Marriage Certificate. Electronic document, https://moms.mn.gov/Search
?S=1, accessed January 18, 2022.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Morton, D.M.
2003 Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
03-418, scale 1:24,000.
Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller
2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–7
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 22, 2021.
Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside,
California.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
Ravalli Republic
2012 Hye L. McCall II. 31 October:2. Hamilton, Montana.
Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San
Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM
Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego
Museum of Man.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
San Bernardino County Sun
1938a Erdman Grikscheit. 1 July:23. San Bernardino, California.
1938b Waldo Willhoft, Attorney, Notice to Creditors No. 12773. 17 September:7. San
Bernardino, California.
1938c Anna Grikscheit. 19 April:23. San Bernardino, California.
1941 Mrs. Clara Lulu Cannon. 16 April:12. San Bernardino, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–8
1943 Harry DeWeese. 18 October:4. San Bernardino, California.
1946 DeWeese. 31 March:12. San Bernardino, California.
1947a Council Approves Hiring of Firemen. 22 January:16. San Bernardino, California.
1947b DeWeese. 21 September:16. San Bernardino, California.
1949 Patrick Cannon. 5 August:38. San Bernardino, California.
1953 Ralph C. Swanson Dies in Long Beach Veterans Hospital. 17 December:17. San
Bernardino, California.
1956a Obituary: Hunt. 9 January:11. San Bernardino, California.
1956b William K. Agan. 31 May:42. San Bernardino, California.
1963 Real Estate—Fontana. 12 November:32. San Bernardino, California.
1964 Train-Auto Crash Kills Loma Lindan. 24 April:15. San Bernardino, California.
1966 Marion C. Waddell. 27 July:22. San Bernardino, California.
1971 Cottage, 2 bdrm. 1 December:49. San Bernardino, California.
1972a Sam S. Lampela, Bloomington. 20 March:20. San Bernardino, California.
1972b COTTAGE. Cooler. 7 August:28. San Bernardino, California.
1986 J.W. ‘Joe’ Collins. 1 November:20. San Bernardino, California.
1994 Charles S. Zafuto Sr. 29 May:244. San Bernardino, California.
San Diego Union
1949 Patrick Cannon. 5 August:17. San Diego, California.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–9
The Missoulian
2008 Betty Lou McCall. 27 March:15. Missoula, Montana.
The News Tribune
2017 Ellen Bay. 7 June:A2. Tacoma, Washington.
The Sandusky Register
1959 Jesse Weirich. 7 March:13. Sandusky, Ohio.
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.
2022 Paleontological Assessment for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project, City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
Unpublished report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
World Forestry Center
2017 Andrew Jackson Pope (1820-1978). Electronic document, https://www.worldforestry
.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/POPE-ANDREW-JACKSON.pdf, accessed
February 26, 2019.
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
Brian F. Smith, MA
Owner, Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982
Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975
Professional Memberships
Society for California Archaeology
Experience
Principal Investigator 1977–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and
Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California,
Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology
from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports
prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies,
including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr.
Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments
(CalTrans).
Professional Accomplishments
These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added
significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in
the Southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been
principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted.
Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San
Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape
Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark
Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the
Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra
Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street
Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707
10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007),
Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007),
Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue
(2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003),
Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001).
1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the
Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla
area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk
faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014).
San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the
San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey
documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018).
Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an
important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by
BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area.
Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program
in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data
recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the
preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented
important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area
(2017).
The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon
resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric
and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property
since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area
encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating
that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015).
Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of
San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and
over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an
occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017).
Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area
of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the
1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of
metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and
the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological
program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007).
4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of
the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million
artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the
largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data
that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and
regional prehistoric settlement patterns.
Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of
man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego.
Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego
Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and
Dr. James R. Moriarty.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town
State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed
in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992),
Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at
the Old San Diego Inn (1988).
Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar
area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of
religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of
major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site
over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with
nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study.
City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of
pipeline in the city and county of San Diego.
Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce
a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information
was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city
showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort
also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City
policy.
Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of
Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the
Planning Department of the City.
The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped
agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the
city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy
Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres
and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews;
evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of
cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report.
February- September 2002.
Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13
Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres
and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of
field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co-
authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County:
Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed
video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project
coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of
potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report. January, February, and July 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA,
Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric
and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4
for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of
cultural resources project report. January-March 2002.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside
County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic
sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American
consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines;
cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000.
Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch,
Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five
historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature
recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA
guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000.
Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for
the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews;
development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections
cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April
2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project
manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination;
assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project
report. April 2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California:
Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project
coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural
resources project report. April 2000.
Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California:
Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project
coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural
resources project report. March-April 2000.
Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina
Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included
direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of
artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project
report in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa,
California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines;
authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California:
Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP
eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation;
meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report. December 1999-January 2000.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5
Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San
Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and
botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of
artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project
report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000.
Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of
Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development
of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of
site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project
report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000.
Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor—
included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel.
September 1999.
Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center,
California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and
completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based
on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis;
authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment
Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews;
development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on
CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis;
authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999.
Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project,
Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of
sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and
curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula
Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and
curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of
cultural resources project report. July 1999.
Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple
Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project
manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple
field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental
Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report.
August 1997- January 2000.
Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project
archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric
and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including
prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural
resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 484-0915 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: jenni@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Science, Cultural Resource Management Archaeology 2016
St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology 2004
University of California, Santa Cruz
Specialized Education/Training
Archaeological Field School 2014
Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project
Research Interests
California Coastal / Inland Archaeology Zooarchaeology
Historic Structure Significance Eligibility Historical Archaeology
Human Behavioral Ecology Taphonomic Studies
Experience
Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
November 2006–Present
Writing, editing, and producing cultural resource reports for both California Environmental Quality Act and
National Environmental Policy Act compliance; recording and evaluating historic resources, including
historic structure significance eligibility evaluations, Historical Resource Research Reports, Historical
Resource Technical Reports, and Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering
Record preparation; faunal, prehistoric, and historic laboratory analysis; construction monitoring
management; coordinating field surveys and excavations; and laboratory management.
UC Santa Cruz Monterey Bay Archaeology Archives Supervisor
Santa Cruz, California
December 2003–March 2004
Supervising intern for archaeological collections housed at UC Santa Cruz. Supervised undergraduate
interns and maintained curated archaeological materials recovered from the greater Monterey Bay region.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 2
Faunal Analyst, Research Assistant
University of California, Santa Cruz
June 2003–December 2003
Intern assisting in laboratory analysis and cataloging for faunal remains collected from CA-MNT-234.
Analysis included detailed zoological identification and taphonomic analysis of prehistoric marine and
terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish inhabiting the greater Monterey Bay region.
Archaeological Technician, Office Manager
Archaeological Resource Management
January 2000-December 2001
Conducted construction monitoring, field survey, excavation, report editing, report production, monitoring
coordination and office management.
Certifications
City of San Diego Certified Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor
40-Hour Hazardous Waste/Emergency Response OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (e)
Scholarly Works
Big Game, Small Game: A Comprehensive Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered from CA-SDI-11,521,
2016, Master’s thesis on file at St. Cloud University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Technical Reports
Kraft, Jennifer R.
2012 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Pottery Court Project (TPM 36193) City of Lake
Elsinore. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California Eastern
Information Center.
Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith
2016 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1492 K Street Project City of San
Diego. Prepared for Trestle Development, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2016 Focused Historic Structure Assessment for the Fredericka Manor Retirement Community City of
Chula Vista, San Diego County, California APN 566-240-27. Prepared for Front Porch
Communities and Services – Fredericka Manor, LLC. Report on file at the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department.
2016 Historic Structure Assessment for 8585 La Mesa Boulevard City of La Mesa, San Diego County,
California. APN 494-300-11. Prepared for Silvergate Development. Report on file at the City of
La Mesa Planning Department.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 3
2016 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane Project City of San Diego Project
No. 471873 APN 344-030-20. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Beacon Apartments Project City of San Diego Civic San
Diego Development Permit #2016-19 APN 534-210-12. Prepared for Wakeland Housing &
Development Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the State/Columbia/Ash/A Block Project San Diego,
California. Prepared for Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2015 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 687B Project, City of San
Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2015 Cultural Resource Testing Results for the Broadway and Pacific Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for BOSA Development California, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2015 Historic Structure Assessment for the StorQuest Project, City of La Mesa, (APN 494-101-14-00).
Prepared for Real Estate Development and Entitlement. Report on file at the City of La Mesa.
2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1905 Spindrift Remodel Project, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Brian Malk and Nancy Heitel. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Cisterra Sempra Office Tower Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for SDG-Left Field, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2015 Results of a Cultural Resources Testing Program for the 15th and Island Project City of San Diego.
Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Cesar Chavez Community College Project. Prepared
for San Diego Community College District. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Grantville Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Cass Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pacific Beach Row Homes Project, San Diego,
California. Prepared for Armstrong Builders, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 761 Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 770 Project (Part of Group
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 4
3014), City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 11950 El Hermano Road, Riverside County. Prepared for Forestar
Toscana, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 161 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, California (Project No.
342196; APN 666-030-09). Prepared for Blue Key Realty. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2014 Historic Structure Assessment for 8055 La Mesa Boulevard, City of La Mesa (APN 470-582-11-00).
Prepared for Lee Machado. Report on file at the City of La Mesa.
2014 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Watson Land Company. Report on file at the San
Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Celadon (9th and Broadway) Project. Prepared for BRIDGE
Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Comm 22 Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for BRIDGE
Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Pinnacle 15th & Island Project, City of San Diego. Prepared
for Pinnacle International Development, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2014 Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Altman Residence Project, 9696 La Jolla Farms Road, La
Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Steve Altman. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase III Project, City of San
Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation General Engineering Contractors. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase IIIA Project, City of San
Diego. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the F Street Emergency Water Main Replacement Project,
City of San Diego. Prepared for Orion Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Old Town Community Church Project, 2444 Congress
Street, San Diego, California 92110. Prepared for Soltek Pacific, Inc. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment, 2603 Dove Street, San Diego, California (APN) 452-674-32).
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 5
Prepared for Barzal and Scotti Real Estate Corporation. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment at the Western Christian School, 3105 Padua Avenue, Claremont,
California 91711 (APN 8671-005-053). Prepared for Western Christian School. Report on file at
the City of Claremont.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 7th and F Street Parking Project, City of San Diego. Prepared
for DZI Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1919 Spindrift Drive Project. Prepared for V.J. and Uma
Joshi. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Smith, Brian F. and Jennifer R. Kraft
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2314 Rue Adriane Building, San Diego, California Project
No. 460562. Prepared for the Brown Studio. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development
Services Department.
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4921 Voltaire Street Building, San Diego, California
Project No. 471161. Prepared for Sean Gogarty. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 5147 Hilltop Drive Building, San Diego, California
Project No. 451707. Prepared for JORGA Home Design. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the Midway Drive Postal Service Processing and Distribution
Center 2535 Midway Drive San Diego, California 92138 Project No. 507152. Prepared for Steelwave,
LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department.
2016 Historic Resource Technical Report for 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane La Jolla, California Project No.
471873. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2015 Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Urban Discovery Academy Project.
Prepared for Davis Reed Construction, Inc. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development
Services Department.
2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 520 West Ash Street Project, City of
San Diego. Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1919 Pacific Highway Project City of
San Diego City Preliminary Review PTS #451689 Grading and Shoring PTS #465292. Prepared for
Wood Partners. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department.
2015 Historical Resource Research Report for 16929 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California.
Prepared for Rancho Bernardo LHP, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development
Services Department.
2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2002-2004 El Cajon Boulevard Building, San Diego,
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 6
California 92014. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4319-4321 Florida Street Building, San Diego, California
92104. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2015 Historic Resource Technical Report for 726 Jersey Court San Diego, California Project No. 455127.
Prepared for Chad Irwin. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2015 Islenair Historic Sidewalk Stamp Program for Sewer and Water Group 3014, City of San Diego.
Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2014 Historical Resource Research Report for 2850 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, California (Project No.
392445). Prepared for Zephyr Partners – RE, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego
Development Services Department.
Smith, Brian F., Tracy A. Stropes, Tracy M. Buday, and Jennifer R. Kraft
2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1900 Spindrift Drive – Cabana and Landscape
Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1912 Spindrift Drive – Landscape
Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the
California South Coastal Information Center.
Stropes, J.R.K. and Brian F. Smith
2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4143 Park Boulevard Building, San Diego, California
92103. Prepared for Bernardini Investments, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 6375 Avenida Cresta Building, San Diego, California
92037. Prepared for Jeffrey and Anne Blackburn. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2019 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 915 Grape Street Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for
Bayview SD, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department.
2019 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Grove Residences Project, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego
County, California. Prepared for Beach City Builders, Inc. Report on file at the County of San Diego.
2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report for the 169 and 171 Fifth Avenue Buildings, City of Chula Vista,
San Diego County, California. Prepared for Turner Impact Capital. Report on file at the City of
Chula Vista.
2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 1409 South El Camino Real Building, San Clemente, California.
Prepared for Shoreline Dental Studio. Report on file at the City of San Clemente.
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 212 West Hawthorn Street Building, San Diego,
California 92101. Prepared for Jacob Schwartz. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 7
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 1142-1142 ½ Prospect Street Building, San Diego,
California 92037. Prepared for LLJ Ventures. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3000-3016 University Avenue/3901-3915 30th Street
Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for Cirque Hospitality. Report on file at the City
of San Diego.
2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 125 Mozart Avenue Building, Cardiff, California. Prepared for
Brett Farrow. Report on file at the City of Encinitas.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Santa Ana Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at the California
South Central Coastal Information Center.
2019 Historical Resource Technical Report for 817-821 Coast Boulevard South, La Jolla, California.
Prepared for Design Line Interiors. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3829 Texas Street Building, San Diego, California 92014.
Prepared for Blue Centurion Homes. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information
Center.
2018 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3925-3927 Illinois Street Building, San Diego, California
92104. Prepared for Park Pacifica, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego.
Contributing Author /Analyst
2015 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Site SDI-10,237 Locus F, Everly Subdivision Project, El Cajon, California by Tracy A.
Stropes and Brian F. Smith. Prepared for Shea Homes. Report on file at the California South
Coastal Information Center.
2011 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for A Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-4606
Locus B for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes.
Prepared for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for An Archaeological Study for the 1912 Spindrift Drive Project,
La Jolla, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for Island Architects. Report
on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Results of a Cultural Mitigation and Monitoring Program for
Robertson Ranch: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Camps near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by Brian F.
Smith. Prepared for McMillan Land Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal
Information Center.
2009 Faunal Identification for “An Earlier Extirpation of Fur Seals in the Monterey Bay Region: Recent
Findings and Social Implications” by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez and Charlotte K. Sunseri. Proceedings
of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 21, 2009
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Site Record Forms
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX E
Historic Maps