HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR
THE 8155 BANANA AVENUE PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN 0230-041-60
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:
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
November 18, 2022
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Irem Oz 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: Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Report Date: November 18, 2022
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project,
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APN 0230-
041-60)
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Structure
Evaluation
New Sites: Temp-1 (8155 Banana Avenue)
USGS Quadrangle: Fontana, California (7.5 minute)
Acreage: 0.87 acre
Key Words: Survey; historic building at 8155 Banana Avenue recorded as
Temp-1; monitoring of grading is recommended; historic
building not significant and preservation not recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ........................................................................ vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1.0–1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting – 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 .................................................................................... 1.0–18
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................... 1.0–18
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 .............................................................................. 3.0–4
3.3.1 History of the Project Area ..................................................................... 3.0–7
3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resource .......................................................... 3.0–8
3.3.3 Significance Evaluation .......................................................................... 3.0–26
3.4 Discussion/Summary ....................................................................................... 3.0–43
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 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Site Record Form*
Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
Appendix E – Historic Documents
* Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map .................................................................................. 1.0–2
Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ..................................................................... 1.0–3
Figure 1.1–3 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
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project from the southeast corner, facing west .................... 3.0–2
Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project from the northwest corner showing Site Temp-1,
facing southeast ............................................................................................... 3.0–3
Plate 3.2–3 View of the soil stockpiles in the southwest corner of the project, facing
northeast .......................................................................................................... 3.0–3
Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the project from the northeast corner, facing southwest ............ 3.0–4
Plate 3.3–1 William V. Landecena (left) ........................................................................... 3.0–7
Plate 3.3–2 Aerial Overview of the 8155 Banana Avenue Building ................................. 3.0–10
Plate 3.3–3 South Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Facing North ............. 3.0–11
Plate 3.3–4 South Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Showing the Main
Entry Door, Facing North ............................................................................... 3.0–12
Plate 3.3–5 South Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Facing North ............. 3.0–13
Plate 3.3–6 South Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Facing Northeast ...... 3.0–14
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
List of Plates (continued)
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.3–7 South Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Attached Garage and Pergola,
Facing North .................................................................................................... 3.0–15
Plate 3.3–8 South Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Attached Garage and Pergola,
Facing Northwest ............................................................................................ 3.0–16
Plate 3.3–9 East Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Attached Garage, Facing
Northwest ........................................................................................................ 3.0–17
Plate 3.3–10 East Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Attached Garage, Showing the
Garage Door, Facing West ............................................................................. 3.0–18
Plate 3.3–11 North and East Façades of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Showing
the Semi-Enclosed Courtyard, Facing Southwest .......................................... 3.0–19
Plate 3.3–12 North Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Attached Garage, Facing South 3.0–20
Plate 3.3–13 North Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Attached Garage (Left) and
North and East Façades of the Residence (Right), Facing Southwest ........... 3.0–21
Plate 3.3–14 North Façade (Left) and East Façade of the North Wing (Right) of the
8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Facing South ............................................ 3.0–22
Plate 3.3–15 North Façade of the North Wing of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence,
Facing South .................................................................................................. 3.0–23
Plate 3.3–16 West Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Facing Northeast ..... 3.0–24
Plate 3.3–17 North Façade of the 8155 Banana Avenue Residence, Facing Southeast .... 3.0–25
Plate 3.3–18 1959 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–29
Plate 3.3–19 1966 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–30
Plate 3.3–20 1976 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–31
Plate 3.3–21 1980 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–32
Plate 3.3–22 1985 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–33
Plate 3.3–23 1989 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–34
Plate 3.3–24 1994 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–35
Plate 3.3–25 2002 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–36
Plate 3.3–26 2004 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–37
Plate 3.3–27 2005 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................... 3.0–38
Plate 3.3–28 2009 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................ 3.0–39
Plate 3.3–29 Current Aerial Photograph ............................................................................ 3.0–40
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.3–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the 8155 Banana
Avenue Project ............................................................................................... 1.0–17
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a requirement by the City of Fontana, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
(BFSA) conducted a cultural resources survey of the 0.87-acre 8155 Banana Avenue Project. This
project is located southeast of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Banana Avenue in the
city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 0230-041-
60). On the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scale Fontana, California topographic
quadrangle map, the project is situated within Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 6 West
(projected), San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The proposed project consists of the
construction of a three-story, 24-unit apartment building with supporting tenant covered and open
parking, perimeter screen walls, trash enclosures, on-site lighting, security cameras, and site
landscaping.
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).
The archaeological survey, which was conducted on August 16, 2022, was completed in
order to determine if cultural resources exist within the property and if the project represents a
potential adverse impact to cultural resources. The survey resulted in the identification of one
historic single-family residence located at 8155 Banana Avenue which was recorded as Temp-1.
According to the proposed development plan, the 8155 Banana Avenue Project will impact the
identified cultural resource site. Based upon the results of the field survey and records searches,
from the perspective of the CEQA review of the proposed development, Site Temp-1 has been
evaluated as not significant. While the building is historic in age, it was not designed by an
architect of importance, it does not possess any architecturally important elements, and the owners
and occupants were not historically significant to the community. Based upon the conclusions
reached during the current evaluation, no mitigation measures are recommended for the historic
building at Temp-1. No impacts to significant resources are associated with the proposed
development of the property.
Although the historic building was 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 1960s. 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
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vii
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 (see Section 5.0). As part of this
study, a copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project was conducted in
order to comply with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The project is located
southeast of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Banana Avenue at 8155 Banana Avenue in
the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The property, which
includes APN 0230-041-60, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana, California topographic
quadrangle in Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 6 West (Figure 1.1–2). The project proposes
to grade the entire 0.87-acre property for the construction of a three-story, 24-unit apartment
building with supporting tenant covered parking, open parking, perimeter screen walls, on-site
lighting, security cameras, and site landscaping (Figure 1.1–3).
The project is currently developed with a single-family residence and attached garage
constructed in 1961 and associated hardscape and landscaping. The historic single-family
residence is located at 8155 Banana Avenue and has been recorded as Temp-1.
The property was previously graded for the development of the residence and ground
visibility during the survey was limited by the presence of the residence as well as equipment and
soil stock storage associated with a project located on an adjacent parcel. 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 8155 Banana 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 situated on an alluvial fan at
the western margin and southern end of Lytle Creek.
The general project area is characterized by relatively flat land (with elevations ranging
from 1,203 to 1,207 feet AMSL) that was previously used as an orchard and rural ranch. No
natural features that are often associated with prehistoric sites, such as bedrock outcrops or natural
sources of water, are visible on aerial photographs or maps of the project area.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
Geologically, the project primarily lies near the western margin and distal southern end
of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan, which emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains
approximately nine to 10 miles to the north, as a result of uplift and dissection of the eastern San
Gabriel Mountains (Wirths 2022). The main source of these sediments is from the Lytle Creek
drainage, near where the northwest-southeast-trending San Andreas fault zone cuts across and
separates the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges (Wirths 2022). Geomorphically,
the project is relatively flat lying, with a gentle slope to the southwest. The area is overlain by
Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial fan sediments of the Lytle Creek fan (Morton 2003).
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
to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material
culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture
that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective.
As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and
juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.”
This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of
choices and consequences influencing everything from technology, to religions, to institutions.
Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices,
changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address
both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the
archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014).
To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological
(etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the
ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected.
In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution
had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia
of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has
affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there
remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As
a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible.
1.3.1 Introduction
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
(Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer,
which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and
evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984;
Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the
particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west
than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains,
marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized
hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds,
mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss
and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP)
The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP.
The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general
warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In
southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by
cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at
8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one
to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the
coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines
were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely
discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and
estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea
levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).
At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons
filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters
1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes
surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the
lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects upon the types of resources available to
prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten,
but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).
The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water,
and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland
to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants,
including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures,
complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling
Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.
Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790)
Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region
moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition into the Late Prehistoric Period. This
period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political,
and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with
the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of
more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments
during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and
the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the
Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade
networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day
Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso
Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River,
the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of
the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including
Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island,
this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern
California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as
the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied
at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were
comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller
family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of
primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak
groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in
sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the
locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and
included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species,
purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland
resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare,
rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been
at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family;
2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established
lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were
politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain
seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to
exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion,
leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s)
under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was
legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between
the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting
healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and
collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of
powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other
groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making
baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses
varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-
covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures
included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near
the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore
deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact)
cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain,
yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment
or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other
tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell
flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and
wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were
fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets
were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial
items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina
Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual
objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino greatly profited from trading steatite
since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a;
Kroeber 1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death,
supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-
access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales
relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster-
transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and
Smith 1978b)
The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were
induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer,
using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family
dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take
place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole
roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband,
wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or
widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the
mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader
would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and
sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).
The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality.
Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and
piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots,
bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small
rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also
hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed
with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often
during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used
to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to
a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food
acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or
bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either
stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general
periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American
Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into
additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to
1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these
phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for
archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western
peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents,
oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan
Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an
expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific
coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track,
Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names
have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from
use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”;
60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages
observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial,
long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged
from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey
(San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel
(Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California
was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given
permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from
Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through
Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de
Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through
southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between
San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the
establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly
vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to
expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In
order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find
potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father
Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla,
at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley
received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father
Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino
County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente
(circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These
efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established
a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The
indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to
work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social
conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin
to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the
establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a
result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered
expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan
Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located
in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names
quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day
locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake
Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo
(Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
within western Riverside County.
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native
Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources,
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook
1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war
(Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put
into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once
California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines,
business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969;
Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27
separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was
primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was
established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office
in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the
Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984).
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County,
including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto
Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing
provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the
promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its
first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental
Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx
brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area
became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates
founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho.
Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not
until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that
the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well
suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive
irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in
California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population
growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation
of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson
1971).
Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a
military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During
World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location
of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout
the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant
portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s,
Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more
than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents
(Patterson 1971).
General History of the City of Fontana
In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, cofounder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer
based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries,
Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as part of the
Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other
properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including
almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and
settlers surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in which the
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water Company was
formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to:
[U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These
latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and
using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the
settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long
and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them,
quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to
control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic
Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have
quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888)
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company
platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had
acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the
channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888).
In 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).
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).
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
The results of the records search indicate that 17 resources have been recorded within one
mile of the 8155 Banana Avenue Project (Table 1.3–1), none of which have been recorded within
the project. The majority (N=16) of these resources are historic and include the Kaiser Steel Mill,
the Pat Maloy Mine, a concrete watering trough, single- and multiple-family buildings, two motels,
a farm/ranch complex, five roads, and a segment of the West Fontana Flood Control Channel.
Only one prehistoric resource, a lithic scatter, was identified within a one-mile radius of the project.
Table 1.3–1
Archaeological Sites Located Within
One Mile of the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
Site(s) Description
SBR-7922 Prehistoric lithic scatter
SBR-4131H Historic Kaiser Steel Mill
SBR-7199H Historic farm/ranch complex
SBR-7990H Historic concrete watering trough
SBR-8257H Historic Pat Maloy Mine
P-36-013624, P-36-013625, and P-36-020309 Historic single-family residence(s)
P-36-013935 and P-36-020310 Historic motel building
P-36-013936 Historic multi-family residential building
P-36-024084, P-36-024085, P-36-024088, P-
36-024089, and SBR-15,663H Historic road
P-36-029538 Historic West Fontana Flood Control Channel
The records search results also indicate that 19 cultural resource studies have been
conducted within a one-mile radius of the project (see Appendix C), none of which intersect the
project.
The following historic sources were also reviewed:
• The National Register of Historic Places Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of
Eligibility
• The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory
• The USGS 1896 and 1955 San Bernardino and 1953, 1963, 1969, and 1975 Fontana
and Guasti topographic maps
• Historic aerial photographs from 1959 to present
A building can be seen on the property as early as the 1963 Fontana USGS map. This building is
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
also visible on the 1966 aerial photograph. No additional development is shown on any later
photograph or map.
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC, which was returned with positive
results for the presence of sacred sites or locations of ceremonial importance in the vicinity of the
project. The NAHC recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation for additional information. All correspondence can be found in Appendix D.
The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for prehistoric
sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property due to the extensive nature of past
ground disturbances and the lack of natural resources often associated with prehistoric sites. The
records search and literature review suggest that historic buildings and sites associated with the
agricultural history of the Fontana area are the most likely cultural resources to be encountered
within the 8155 Banana Avenue Project. Therefore, based upon the records search results, there
is a high potential for historic resources to be located within the project.
1.4 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino
County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are
used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide
the guidance for making such a determination, as provided below.
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
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
“historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC
SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of
the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section
5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
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
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–20
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the
guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and
site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains
unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant
effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect
upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared
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).
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–21
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana 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 8155 Banana Avenue Project
included the survey of a 0.87-acre area and the assessment of one historic structure. 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 structure 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 8155 Banana 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 8155 Banana 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 0.87-acre project, and the detailed recordation of
all identified cultural resources. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Fontana
environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory
requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of
resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those
established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Archival Research
Records relating to the ownership and developmental history of this project were sought to
identify any associated historic persons, historic events, or architectural significance. Records
research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the SCCIC, the Fontana Historical Society,
the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County
Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public
Library. Appendix E contains maps of the property, including historic USGS maps from 1953,
1963, 1969, and 1975, and the current Assessor’s parcel map. No Sanborn maps are available as
the property is outside the Fontana coverage areas.
3.1.2 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard
archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the
project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey
transects set approximately 10 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, including
all potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located. Photographs documenting
survey discoveries and overall survey conditions were taken frequently. All cultural resources
were recorded as necessary according to the OHP’s manual, Instructions for Recording Historical
Resources, using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms.
3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment
Methods for evaluating the integrity and significance of the historic building within APN
0230-041-60 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 building. The original core structure and all
modifications made to the building since its initial construction were also recorded. The current
setting of the building was compared to the historical setting of the property. This information
was combined with the archival research in order to evaluate the building’s seven aspects of
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
integrity, as well as its potential significance under CEQA guidelines.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
BFSA Field Director Clarence Hoff conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on August
16, 2022 under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian Smith. Ground visibility was limited
due to the presence of the existing residence as well as equipment and soil stockpiles associated
with a project located on an adjacent parcel (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, one historic building has
been identified at 8155 Banana Avenue. The building has been recorded as Temp-1 with the
SCCIC (Figure 3.2–1) and was subsequently evaluated for significance as part of this study. No
other cultural resources were observed during the survey of the project.
Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project from the southeast corner, facing west.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–3
Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the project from the northwest corner showing Site
Temp-1, facing southeast.
Plate 3.2–3: View of the soil stockpiles in the southwest corner of the project, facing northeast.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–4
3.3 Historic Structure Analysis
Within the boundaries of the subject property, one historic building with an address of 8155
Banana Avenue has been identified (Figure 3.3–1). A DPR site form for the building was
submitted to the SCCIC. Once processed, the SCCIC will assign the new resource a permanent
site number. The following section provides the pertinent field results for the significance
evaluation for the historic building located within the project boundaries, which was conducted in
accordance with City of Fontana guidelines and site evaluation protocols. A description and
significance evaluation of the historic resource is provided below.
Plate 3.2–4: View of the project from the northeast corner, facing southwest.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–7
3.3.1 History of the Project Area
The County of San Bernardino Parcel Information Management System indicates that the
single-family residence located at 8155 Banana Avenue was constructed in 1961 while the
property was owned by the Roy E. and Anna Preston. Roy Preston was born in 1929 and Anna
Preston was born in 1932. They got married in 1947 (Ancestry.com 2007). According to the chain
of title, Roy and Anna Preston co-owned the 8155 Banana Avenue property until their divorce in
1968, when Roy Preston become the sole owner of the property (Ancestry.com 2007).
The property was acquired by A.G. and Pearl I. Fuqua in 1973, Alvin G. and Eula Mae
Ramshur in 1979, and Arion D. and Adela Z. Conteas in 1981. Research efforts resulted in very
little information about the Fuqua and Ramshur families.
Arion D. Conteas was born in 1932 and Adela Zita Hernandez (later Conteas) was born in
1947. They married in 1980 (Ancestry.com 2007). Arion Conteas was an electronic engineer at
Goldstone Tracking Station, located north of Barstow (San Bernardino County Sun 1977). He was
also a radio show host (Desert Dispatch 1974, 1976) and a record collector/dealer with more than
190,000 records in his possession (Lundahl 1978). By 1980, he was said to have the largest
collection in Southern California with nearly 200,000 records and ran a mail order business for
collectors (San Bernardino Sun 1980). While a name change application published in the San
Bernardino County Sun (1986) indicates that the Conteas family was living in the 8155 Banana
Avenue residence in 1986, phone and address directories indicate that they moved to Carlsbad
between 1986 and 2001 (Ancestry.com 2005).
The property was acquired by William V. Landecena (Plate 3.3–1) and Dorothy M.
Landecena in 1988. William “Bill” Vincent
Landecena was born in 1925, in Chicago, Illinois
(Ancestry.com 2011). Dorothy M. Clickhenger
(later Landecena) was also born in 1925 and
married Bill Landecena in 1960 (Ancestry.com
2007). Bill and Dorothy Landecena owned and
operated the Arrow Food Locker, later the Arrow
Meat Company, in Upland until their retirement in
1981 (The Daily Report 1970; San Gabriel Valley
Tribune 2010). Bill Landecena was elected
national director of the American Association of
Meat Processors in 1975 (Montclair Tribune 1975).
The Landecenas were active philanthropists and
established their charity foundation, the Landecena Family Charitable Foundation, in 2000, which
was headquartered in Upland (Causeiq.com 2020). Newspaper articles indicate that their
foundation supported animal welfare efforts, including spay/neuter programs and shelter adoption
fairs (Los Angeles Times 2003, 2004; Sproul 2010). The Landecena Family Charitable Foundation
was active until 2018; however, Dorothy Landecena passed away on October 10, 2010
Plate 3.3‒1: William V. Landecena (left).
(Photograph courtesy of Daily Bulletin 2014)
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–8
(Causeiq.com 2020; San Gabriel Valley Tribune 2010). Additional research indicated that a
community center building named after the Landecenas was established in Upland at an unknown
date. The Landecena Family Community Center was first mentioned in newspapers in January
2012 (Chino Hills Champion 2012); however, historic aerial photographs show that the building
was constructed between 1994 and 2002, indicating that the community center was likely not built
by the Landecena family but was instead dedicated to them prior to 2012. The 8155 Banana
Avenue property remained in possession of the Landecena family until 2006, although it is unclear
if they continued to live on the property at the time of the sale.
The property was acquired by Gary Lawrence Jackson in 2006. According to his death
certificate, Gary L. Jackson was born in California in 1946, worked as an air conditioning
technician, and passed away in July 2019. Upon his passing, the property was purchased by
Guillermo Vergara in 2019. The 8155 Banana Avenue property was acquired by SA Golden
Investments, Inc. in 2019, who are the current owners of the subject property.
3.3.2 Description of Surveyed Resource
According to San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office records, the construction of the
single-family residence and the attached garage located at 8155 Banana Avenue was completed in
1961. The architect and builder of the residence could not be determined. The residence is located
on the west portion of the property, east of Banana Avenue. Access to the residence is provided
from the north via an access road branching off Banana Avenue. A metal and wood fence
surrounds the property. The east end of the south side of this fence features a large opening to
provide access into the property.
The single-family residence is a single-story Ranch house that features an L-shaped plan
which is elongated eastward by the attached garage. The garage is attached to the residence on its
east façade. The north façade of the attached garage is slightly recessed from the north façade of
the residence. The building features multiple roof styles including cross-gable and shed roofs
(Plate 3.3–2). The low-pitched cross-gable roof is covered with composite shingles and the shed
roof is covered with corrugated metal sheets. The cross-gable roof features overhanging eaves
with exposed rafters which are covered with rake boards. The shed roof was constructed using a
wood frame and is covered with corrugated metal sheets. The residence was constructed using
standard frame construction on a concrete foundation. The walls of the building are clad in stucco.
The primary façade of the residence is the south façade, which faces away from the access
road branching off Banana Avenue (Plate 3.3–3). This elevation consists of the south façades of
the residence and attached garage. A shed roof runs the length of this elevation, which provides
shelter to the south façade of the building. The east section of the shed roof was constructed
between 1985 and 1989, the middle portion was constructed between 2004 and 2005, and the west
portion was constructed between 2011 and 2012. The main entry of the residence is located at the
center of the south façade, featuring a wood and glass door with a hanging screen in front and a
concrete door stoop (Plate 3.3–4). One sliding window is located west of the door and two sliding
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–9
windows are located on the east side of the door. The parts of the wall where these windows are
located are covered with unfinished compressed wood sheets, and west of the west window is an
unfinished alcove with exposed insultation (Plates 3.3–5 and 3.3–6). Another entrance is located
on the west portion of this façade, which features the gable end of the cross-gable roof. Two
sliding windows with colonial-style grilles are placed on either side of the entry door, which
features two panels and a glass window. A partially covered door opening is located on the east
end of this façade where the garage and residence are connected.
A wood pergola is attached to the west side of the south façade of the attached garage (see
Plates 3.3–2, 3.3–7, and 3.3–8). An entry is located under the pergola that features a plain wood
door. An external metal storage structure is located east of this pergola, and a sliding window and
a plain wood door are located east of the storage structure. The east façade of the attached garage
features a 24-panel wood and glass garage door (Plate 3.3–9 and 3.3–10).
The north façade of the attached garage and the north and east façades of the residence
form an L-shape, creating a semi-enclosed courtyard facing Banana Avenue (Plate 3.3–11). The
north façade of the attached garage features four sliding windows of various sizes (Plate 3.3–12).
The recessed north façade of the garage creates a narrow east façade of the residence, which
features another sliding window (Plate 3.3–13). The area in front of this narrow east façade
features a concrete-paved, small rectangular area. The north façade of the residence, located west
of the garage, features two sliding windows and a four-panel wood door with a half-circle window
at the top. The east façade of the north wing of the residence features two more sliding windows.
The north façade of the east wing and the east façade of the north wing of the residence form a
semi-enclosed courtyard on the north side of the residence. This courtyard features a concrete
platform (Plate 3.3–14) and planter beds along the exterior walls of the house.
The north façade of the north wing of the residence features one sliding window (Plate 3.3–
15) and the west façade of the residence features three horizontal sliding windows (Plates 3.3–16
and 3.3–17). None of the windows on the residence and attached garage are original, and all
windows have PVC window frames that are painted white.
The modifications to the 8155 Banana Avenue building include:
• Construction of the east section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of the
residence between 1985 and 1989;
• Construction of the middle section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of the
residence between 2004 and 2005;
• Construction of the west section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of the
residence between 2011 and 2012;
• Construction of the pergola on the south façade of the garage between 2019 and 2020;
• Replacement of the windows at an unknown date; and
• Replacement of sections of the wall on the south façade of the residence at an unknown
date.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–26
3.3.3 Significance Evaluation
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 building 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 building. Therefore,
criteria for listing on the CRHR were used to measure the significance of the resources.
Integrity Evaluation
When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical
identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of
construction. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly
relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while
condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances,
integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if a resource
is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then
the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted.
In order to determine whether or not the building is 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 building
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 building had always existed at its present location or if it had been
moved, rebuilt, or its footprint significantly altered. Historical research revealed that
the 8155 Banana Avenue building was constructed in its current location in 1961, and
therefore, retains integrity of location.
2. Integrity of Design [refers to] the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of
design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the building and any
architectural features present. The 8155 Banana Avenue residence was constructed in
1961 as a Ranch-style building. The modifications made to the residence since its
original construction include: construction of the east section of the shed roof attached
to the south façade of the residence between 1985 and 1989, construction of the middle
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–27
section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of the residence between 2004 and
2005, construction of the west section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of
the residence between 2011 and 2012, construction of the pergola attached to the south
façade of the attached garage between 2019 and 2020, replacement of the windows at
an unknown date, and replacement of sections of the wall on the south façade of the
residence at an unknown date. These modifications did not result in the alteration of
the form, plan, space, and structure of the building, and the residence preserved its
Ranch-style construction. Additionally, these changes did not impact the building’s
integrity of design. Therefore, the residence retains 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 building located within
the boundaries of the 8155 Banana Avenue Project was constructed in 1961. The
surrounding area consisted of low-density residential development from the 1950s into
the 1980s (Plates 3.3–18 to 3.3–21). The parcels and streets were laid out, but not all
the building lots were developed. The area north of the 8155 Banana Avenue property
was generally vacant, except for the lots immediately north of the subject property
which included two small residential buildings. These lots are currently developed
with large commercial warehouses. The lot immediately east/southeast of the property,
which currently includes an elementary school, was almost entirely vacant except for
two small residential units. The area north of the 8155 Banana Avenue property was
developed between 1985 and 1994 (Plates 3.3–22 to 3.3–24). Housing developments
started to be developed west and south of the property between 1994 and 2002. The
elementary school east of the property was constructed between 2002 and 2005 (Plates
3.3–25 to 3.3–27). The commercial structures immediately north of the property were
constructed between 2005 and 2009 (see Plates 3.3–27 to 3.3–28). Currently, the
surrounding area consists of modern single-family residences, large commercial
structures, and an elementary school (Plate 3.3–29). Because the area is no longer
recognizable as the low-density residential 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
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–28
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 building. The modifications made to the residence since its
original construction include: construction of the east section of the shed roof attached
to the south façade of the residence between 1985 and 1989, construction of the middle
section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of the residence between 2004 and
2005, construction of the west section of the shed roof attached to the south façade of
the residence between 2011 and 2012, construction of the pergola attached to the south
façade of the attached roof between 2019 and 2020, the replacement of the windows at
an unknown date, and the replacement of sections of the wall on the south façade of
the residence at an unknown date. These modifications, especially the replacement of
windows and the sections of the wall, resulted in the loss of the original materials.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the building has undergone enough original material
replacements that it does not retain integrity of materials.
5. Integrity of Workmanship [refers to] the physical evidence of the labor and skill of
a particular culture or people during any given period in history (Andrus and
Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of workmanship was assessed by evaluating the quality of
the architectural features present in the building. The original workmanship
demonstrated by the construction of the residence was average. Since its construction,
the building has undergone modifications that have negatively influenced its initial
workmanship. In addition to this, the building does not possess elements or details
that would make it representative of the labor or skill of a particular culture or people.
Therefore, the building never 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 resource’s features, in combination with
its setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during the period of construction.
As noted previously, the integrity of setting for the building has been lost due to the
transformation of the surrounding neighborhood into a higher-density residential area.
While the residence retains its integrity of design, due to the replacement of windows
and sections of the wall, it does not retain integrity of materials. Therefore, the building
does not retain integrity of feeling.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–41
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 resource’s data or information and its ability
to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the Fontana area or the state
of California. Historical research indicates that the building is not associated with any
significant persons or events. None of the individuals who owned or lived in the
building were found to be significant and no known important events occurred at the
property. Although the Landecenas were relatively well-known philanthropists, they
were locally significant to the city of Upland, not the city of Fontana, and no indication
could be found that they established or operated their charitable foundation out of the
8155 Banana Avenue residence. Therefore, the building has never possessed integrity
of association.
The 8155 Banana Avenue residence (Site Temp-1) was determined to retain integrity of
location and design. The residence has never possessed integrity of workmanship or association
and it does not retain integrity of setting, materials, or feeling.
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 8155 Banana Avenue building. Because the property could not be
associated with any specific historic event, the building is 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 8155 Banana Avenue building is not associated
with any persons important in our past. Because the property could not be associated
with the lives of any important persons in our past, the residence is not eligible for
designation under CRHR Criterion 2.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–42
• 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.
The 8155 Banana Avenue residence was constructed in 1961 as a Ranch-style building,
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 8155 Banana Avenue residence possesses five of the seven features listed above:
broad one-story shape; built low to the ground; a low-pitched roof without dormers
with moderate overhang; an attached garage that faces to the side, and an asymmetrical
façade. The residence does not feature a front entry sheltered under the main roof, as
it is located under the shed roof that was constructed between 1984 and 2012. The
residence also lacks a large picture window.
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 8155
Banana 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-
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–43
prominent, front facing gable extension.” While the 8155 Banana Avenue residence
does resemble this form in the way the gables are oriented and has a broad one-story
shape, the building possesses two gabled facades on the north and south facades of its
north wing, as opposed to “a single prominent front facing gable extension.”
Although built within the 1935 to 1975 period of significance for Ranch-style
buildings, the 8155 Banana Avenue residence only possesses five of the seven
character-defining features associated with the Ranch style and, therefore, it is not
considered a representative example of a type (Ranch architecture). Additionally, the
residence does not retain a high level of integrity as it only retains integrity of location
and design. As the Ranch architectural style was popular across the United States and
the building was not built using any unique construction techniques, the 8155 Banana
Avenue residence 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 8155 Banana 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 building located within
the 8155 Banana Avenue Project is not associated with any significant persons or
events and was 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, the building is not eligible for designation under CRHR
Criterion 4.
3.4 Discussion/Summary
The 8155 Banana Avenue residence is evaluated as not historically or architecturally
significant under any CEQA criteria due to a lack of association with any significant persons or
events. Additionally, although it retains some level of integrity, it was never a representative or
significant example of the Ranch style. Because the building is not eligible for listing on the
CRHR, no mitigation measures are required for any future alterations or planned demolition of the
building.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT
IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Resource Importance
The cultural resources survey of the 8155 Banana Avenue Project identified one historic
residence located at 8155 Banana Avenue. The historic single-family residence at has been
recorded as Temp-1. The conclusion of the current assessment is that the building is not CEQA-
significant or eligible for listing on the CRHR. The building has been thoroughly recorded and no
additional information can be derived from further analysis.
4.2 Impact Identification
The proposed development of the 8155 Banana Avenue Project will include the demolition
of one historic building. However, the removal of the building as part of the development of the
property will not constitute an adverse impact because it has been evaluated as not CEQA-
significant and not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The potential does still exist, however, that
historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this location since the 1940s.
To mitigate potential impacts to unrecorded historic features or deposits, mitigation monitoring is
recommended. The mitigation monitoring program is presented in Section 5.0.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES
AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed development will impact one historic building; however, as the resource is
evaluated as not significant and lacking any further research potential, impacts have been
determined to be not significant. Based upon the evaluation of the building 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 1960s. 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 8155 Banana Avenue Project will disturb one non-significant historic resource (Temp-
1) that does not require any mitigation measures. However, to mitigate potential impacts to
resources that have not yet been detected, a MMRP is recommended as a condition of approval.
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
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–2
project 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 8155 Banana 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 8155 Banana 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 8155 Banana 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 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project was directed by
Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by
archaeological field director Clarence Hoff. The report text was prepared by Irem Oz and Brian
Smith. Report graphics were provided by Emily Soong. Technical editing and report production
were conducted by Courtney McNair. 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 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
2005 U.S., Phone and Address Directories, 1993-2002 (database online). Provo, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2007 California, U.S., Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (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.
2011 U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: 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.
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,
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
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).
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Buzzfile.com
2021 Landecena Enterprises Ltd. Electronic document, https://www.buzzfile.com/business/
Landecena-Enterprises-Ltd-909-982-9563, accessed October 3, 2022.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Causeiq.com
2020 Landecena Family Charitable Foundation. Electronic document,
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/landecena-family-charitable-foundation-trust,
336217645/, accessed October 4, 2022.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Chino Hills Champion
2012 Advertisement: Healthy Chino. 28 January:17. Chino, California.
City of Fontana
2018 About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About
-The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018.
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.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
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.
Daily Bulletin
2014 Upland Woman Hopes to Give More Vets a Chance to Visit DC Memorials. Electronic
document, https://www.dailybulletin.com/2014/09/09/upland-woman-hopes-to-give-
more-vets-a-chance-to-visit-dc-memorials/, accessed October 3, 2022.
Desert Dispatch
1974 Advertisement: For Music Lovers. 19 November:4. Barstow, California.
1976 Advertisement: Listen to Nostalgic Music. 1 May:9. Barstow, California.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San
Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
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,
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
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.
Los Angeles Times
2003 Fair Offers Chance to Save Homeless Pets. 16 May:53. Los Angeles, California.
2004 Upland Deserves a Decent Shelter. 7 May:56. Los Angeles, California.
Lundahl, Mark
1978 Some Oldies are Goodie Investments. San Bernardino County Sun 24 September: 65.
San Bernardino, California.
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.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
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.
Montclair Tribune
1975 Meat Processors Pick Uplander as Director. 13 November:16. Montclair, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Morton, D.M.
2003 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
03-418, scale 1:24,000.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside,
California.
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–6
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.
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
1977 Home Microcomputers, Built from Kits, May Soon Be as Commonplace as Stereos. 9
January:57. San Bernardino, California.
1980 The Record King. 26 June:50. San Bernardino, California.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
2010 Obituary: Dorothy Landecena. Legacy.com. Electronic document,
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sgvtribune/name/dorothy-landecena-obituary?
id=21305479, accessed October 4, 2022.
Sproul, Suzanne
2010 Kiwanis Add Some Puppy Love to Chili Cookoff. Los Angeles Daily News. Electronic
document, https://www.dailynews.com/2010/06/11/kiwanis-add-some-puppy-love-to-
chili-cookoff/, accessed October 4, 2022.
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 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–7
The Daily Report
1970 Simple Steps Will Pay Off With Good Eating at Table. 29 October:32. Ontario,
California.
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701–710.
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 8155 Banana Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California (APN 0230-041-60). 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 8155 Banana 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.
Irem Oz, Ph.D.
Architectural Historian Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 484-0915 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: irem@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Doctor of Philosophy, Architecture 2022 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Master of Arts, Archaeology and Art History 2014 Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
Bachelor of Science, City and Regional Planning 2010 Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Research Interests History of Architecture Archival Research Historic Structure Significance Eligibility Ethnography Cultural Heritage Management Qualitative Research
Experience
Architectural Historian Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
March 2022–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.
On-Call Architectural Historian
Stell Environmental Enterprises, Inc.
September 2021–March 2022 Writing, editing, and producing cultural resource reports; 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.
Irem Oz Page 2
Research and Teaching Assistant/Ph.D. Candidate The Pennsylvania State University
August 2015–December 2021 Conducting literature reviews and research on various large-scale urban planning projects; teaching history of architecture and urban planning (ARCH 100) to non-specialist groups of 150+ students per semester; acting as a jury in architectural design studios; developing and conducting comprehensive qualitative research projects with clearly stated scope of work, cultural and scientific significance, and expected outcomes; analyzing and synthesizing spatial and socio-cultural data; producing 3-D models, site plans, section drawings and synthesis plans; preparing interview and focus group protocols, conducting expert, in-depth and walkalong interviews and moderating focus groups; writing grant applications.
Research Assistant UNESCO Mudurnu Cultural Heritage Management Plan Project
March 2013–November 2014 Conducting literature reviews and archival research on the history of the town of Mudurnu in Turkey; conducting field surveys and interviews to identify local tangible and intangible cultural heritage; developing a conservation action plan; preparing and digitizing conservation implementation plan proposals
Project Supervisor
Taksim Yapi, Istanbul
January 2000-December 2001 Conducting literature reviews and archival research on the architectural heritage in Istabul; developing conservation projects for the Molla Çelebi and Hüseyin Ağa Mosques in Istanbul through rigorous archival research and interviews; managing a team of 50 workers and contractors during the implementation of conservation projects; preparing and submitted fiscal reports and memos on project progress.
Scholarly Works Oz, I. and Staub, A. 2020 The Performance of Gender and Ethnic Identity in the Diaspora Mosque in The Architect and the City. Proceedings of the ARCC 15th International Conference. Oz, I. and Staub, A. 2019 Fieldwork in-between Architecture and Anthropology: The Case of Marxloh, Duisburg in Future Praxis: Applied Research as a Bridge between the Theory and Praxis. Proceedings of the ARCC 14th International Conference. Oz, I. and Staub, A. 2018 The Tale of Two Mosques: Marxloher Merkez Mosque vs. Cologne Central Mosque in Architectural Research for a Global Community. Proceedings of the EAEE ARCC 13th
International Conference. Oz, I. 2018 The Tale of Marxloher Merkez Mosque: The Miracle of Duisburg or an Illusion of Miracle?. Archi-DOCT, 10. Oz, I. and Staub, A. 2016 Integration of Turkish Migrants in Germany: A Case Study in Polarities in Architectural Research Addressing Societal Challenges. Proceedings of the EAAE ARCC 11th International Conference.
Irem Oz Page 3
Oz, I. 2015 Spatial Representations of Ideology and Politics in Urban Scene: Keçiören Example. Journal of Ankara Studies, 2, 131-158. 2015 Yıldırım, A. E., Nalbant, K., Aydın, B., Güzelsarı, S., Onur, F., Oz, I., …, Moralı, Y. (2014). Mudurnu Cultural Heritage Area Management Plan, Mudurnu, Turkey: Municipality of Mudurnu
Technical Reports
Oz, Irem 2022 History of the Poultry Research Facilities at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Prepared for Stelle Environmental Enterprises, Inc to be submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Engravings. Report under revision. Oz, Irem and Sarah Steinkraus 2022 Historic Structure Assessment for 401 Avery Street, Walla Walla County, Washington. Parcel
Numbers 350724440024, 360730220010 and 360730220029. Prepared for Gram Northwest, LLC. 2021 Historic Structure Assessment for 2121 Keene Road, Benton County, Washington. Parcel Number 122983000001009. Prepared for Gram Northwest, LLC. Yıldırım, A. E., Nalbant, K., Aydın, B., Güzelsarı, S., Onur, F., Oz, I, Moralı, Y. 2014 Mudurnu Cultural Heritage Area Management Plan, Mudurnu, Turkey: Municipality of Mudurnu
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Site Record Form
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX E
Historic Documents
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ownership Information
Chain of Title
Title Records for 8155 Banana Avenue (APN 230-041-60)
Seller Buyer Year
Fred H. Schulz and Helen N. Schulz Morris D. Clark and Dorothy M. Clark 1958
Morris D. Clark and Dorothy M. Clark Roy E. Preston and Anna Preston 1959
Leonard S. Mc Nee and Mamie Brown
Mc Nee Roy E. Preston and Anna Preston 1962
Anna Preston Roy E. Preston 1968
Sharon K. Preston Roy E. Preston 1973
Roy E. Preston A. G. Fuqua and Pearl I. Fuqua 1973
A. G. Fuqua and Pearl I. Fuqua Alvin G. Ramshur and Eula Mae
Ramshur 1979
Alvin G. Ramshur and Eula Mae
Ramshur Arion D. Conteas and Adela Z. Conteas 1981
Arion D. Conteas and Adela Z. Conteas William V. Landecena and Dorothy M.
Landecena 1988
William V. Landecena and Dorothy M.
Landecena
William V. Landecena and Dorothy M.
Landecena, Trustees 1989
William V. Landecena and Dorothy M.
Landecena
William V. Landecena and Dorothy M.
Landecena, Trustees 1990
William V. Landecena and Dorothy M.
Landecena, Trustees
The Landecena Enterprises Limited
Partnership, dated January 22, 1998 1998
The Landecena Enterprises Limited
Partnership, dated January 22, 1998
William V. Landecena, aka Bill
Landecena, and Dorothy M. Landecena,
Trustees
2004
William V. Landecena, aka Bill
Landecena, and Dorothy M. Landecena,
Trustees
Gary L. Jackson 2006
Gary L. Jackson Gary L. Jackson, Trustee 2019
The Jackson Living Trust dated June 27,
2019 Guillermo Vergara 2019
Elsa Vergara Guillermo Vergara 2019
Seller Buyer Year
Guillermo Vergara SA Golden Investments, Inc. 2019
Cultural Resources Study for the 8155 Banana Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Maps