HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - Cultural Resources StudyCity of Fontana
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project
Initial Study
133
APPENDIX A: CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
City of Fontana
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project
Initial Study
134
This page intentionally left blank.
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
FOR THE 22-114 HEMLOCK AVENUE
PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0237-131-25, -26, and -27
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:
EPD Solutions
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
October 20, 2022
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Andrew J. Garrison and Brian F. Smith
Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 679-8218
Client/Project Proponent: EPD Solutions
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
Report Date: October 20, 2022
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue
Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
(APNs 0237-131-25, -26, and -27)
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey
Cultural Resources: None
USGS Quadrangle: Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 6 West of the USGS
Fontana, California (7.5-minute) Quadrangle
Acreage: 40.01 acres
Key Words: USGS Fontana Quadrangle (7.5 minute); archaeological survey;
negative; monitoring not recommended.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ........................................................................ iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1.0–1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 1.0–1
1.3 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................ 1.0–5
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ....................................... 1.0–23
1.3.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search ....... 1.0–24
1.4 Applicable Regulations .................................................................................... 1.0–24
1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................... 1.0–24
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 2.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ................................................................... 3.0–1
3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................ 3.0–1
3.2 Results of the Field Survey .............................................................................. 3.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 4.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ...................... 5.0–1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................... 6.0–1
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search*
* 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 ................................................................................... 1.0–3
Figure 1.1–3 Conceptual Development Plan ..................................................................... 1.0–4
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii
List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 1.3–1 Hogs being fed by steam shovel at the Fontana Farms hog ranch circa
1935 ................................................................................................................. 1.0–19
Plate 1.3–2 1948 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................. 1.0–20
Plate 1.3–3 1959 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................. 1.0–21
Plate 1.3–4 1967 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................. 1.0–22
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project, facing north ............................................................. 3.0–2
Plate 3.2–2 View of the boarded-up office building in the northwest portion of the
project, facing northeast .................................................................................. 3.0–2
Plate 3.2–3 View of the steel warehouse and prefabricated buildings in the center of
the property, facing southeast ........................................................................ 3.0–3
Plate 3.2–4 View of the manufacturing facility in the center of the project, facing
northeast ........................................................................................................ 3.0–3
Plate 3.2–5 View of the modular storage yard, facing northeast ...................................... 3.0–4
Plate 3.2–6 View of the Hemlock Avenue entrance to the property showing the
commercial landscaping, facing northeast ..................................................... 3.0–4
List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.3–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the 22-114 Hemlock
Avenue Project ............................................................................................... 1.0–23
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request by EPD Solutions, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA)
conducted a cultural resources study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project. The project is
located south of Santa Ana Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue, and bound on the east and west,
respectively, by Beech and Hemlock avenues, in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California. The 40.01-acre property, which includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0237-
131-25, -26, and -27, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana, California topographic
quadrangle in Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 6 West. The subject property is highly
disturbed, having been previously utilized for agriculture and as part of the Fontana Farms hog
ranch before being cleared in the mid- to late twentieth century and developed as an
industrial/commercial business and storage yard currently utilized by ModSpace.
The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present
within the project and subsequently assess 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. Results from the SCCIC records search did not identify any previously
recorded resources within the subject property; however, 24 resources (eight prehistoric and 16
historic) have been recorded within one mile of the project. The most common resources type is
associated with the historic built environment. Historic aerials do show that the property did
historically contain elements of the Fontana Farms hog ranch; however, the subject property has
been cleared and graded since the 1950s and is now developed. As such, there is a low potential
for either historic or prehistoric resources within the project. BFSA also requested, at its own
discretion, a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). However, as of the date of this report, no response has been received.
The cultural resources survey was conducted on October 17, 2022 and did not identify any
cultural resources. The subject property is completely disturbed, covered with buildings, asphalt,
gravel, and commercial landscaping. During the survey, ground visibility was limited; however,
based on the review of aerial imagery and the noted construction history, the property has been
completely cleared and graded since the 1950s and all pemanent structures within the property
were constructed after 2000. Therefore, no archeological monitoring of earthwork is
recommended or warranted based upon the findings of this cultural resources assessment.
However, in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) of the Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 (City
of Fontana 2018a), it is recommended that a condition be included in the development permit that
states in the event that any historic or prehistoric artifacts or features are encountered during
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v
grading, the applicant is required to retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s standards. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCCIC at CSU
Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the
archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the project was conducted in order to comply with
CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The project is south of Santa Ana Avenue,
north of Jurupa Avenue, and bound on the east and west, respectively, by Beech and Hemlock
avenues, in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The property,
which includes APNs 0237-131-25, -26, and -27, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana,
California topographic quadrangle in Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 6 West (Figure 1.1–
2). The project applicant proposes to construct a commercial warehouse building with associated
parking and hardscape within the 40.01-acre (gross) property (Figure 1.1–3).
The subject property is highly disturbed, having been previously utilized for agriculture
and part of the Fontana Farms hog ranch before being cleared in the mid- to late twentieth century
and developed as an industrial/commercial business and storage yard currently utilized by
ModSpace. As a result of the previous land use, the property appears to have been cleared multiple
times and graded. 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. The
proximity to Lytle Creek and the terrestrial ecosystems surrounding the creek are part of an
environmental setting that supported a significant prehistoric population for over 10,000 years.
Regarding historic resources, the property is located within an area that historically supported rural
residential/agricultural and commercial businesses, and structures older than 50 years of age are
common in the project vicinity.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the city of
Fontana. The subject property is part of the Chino Basin and located south of the San Gabriel
Mountains, north of the Jurupa Mountains, and west of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San
Gabriel Mountains extend east from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to the Cajon Pass in San
Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges with peaks exceeding
9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The project is located near the western margin and distal southern end of the broad Lytle
Creek alluvial fan that 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 (Morton and Miller 2006).
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–5
Geomorphically, the project is relatively flat-lying, with a gentle slope to the southwest.
The project is underlain by late to middle Pleistocene (approximately 11,700 to 780,000 years ago
[Cohen and Gibbard 2011]) old alluvial fan deposits that occur as slightly raised areas protruding
through the surrounding young alluvial fan sediments. At the western and eastern edges of the
project, the old alluvial fan deposits are buried by Holocene and late Pleistocene (present day to
approximately 120,000 years ago [Cohen and Gibbard 2011]) young alluvial fan sediments of the
Lytle Creek fan (Wirths 2022; Morton 2003). Soils within the project are characterized as Tujunga
gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC) (NRCS 2022).
During the prehistoric period, vegetation near the project provided sufficient food
resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project during
prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and
coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project
during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely
obtainable from the Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek, and the Santa Ana River.
1.3 Cultural Setting
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–6
(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 circa 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).
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures,
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–7
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
elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species,
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–8
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
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–9
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 profited well from trading steatite since
it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–10
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).
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–11
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)
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 colonization 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 what is
now Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman
1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de
Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through
southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between
San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the
establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became more 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 on 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
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–12
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 were 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 were
considered highly valuable as a result. 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).
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
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–13
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 established
during the earlier rancho period.
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County,
including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their
ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto
Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing
provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the
promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its
first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental
Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx
brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region.
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
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
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–14
Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have
quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888)
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company
platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had
acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the
channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888). In the early 1900s:
The use of the automobile had grown considerably … and there was a need for
better roads, the The National Old Trails (N.O.T.) Association was organized to
promote a highway between Los Angeles and New York; which was aligned close
to the tracks of the AT & Santa Fe railroad through California and Arizona, passing
through Fontana. (Whittall 2020)
In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana
Development Company purchased Rosena and by 1905, had begun the building of a farming
complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a
company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982). By 1906, Miller
had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company assets and created
the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company. Afterward, Miller oversaw the
construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from Lytle Creek, as well as the planting
of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Cornford 1995).
In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe
railroad tracks. That year, Foothill Boulevard was improved “and the Automobile Club of
Southern California’s map of 1912 shows the N.O.T. highway running on the north side of the
Santa Fe Railroad, passing through Rialto and heading straight, west until reaching Cucamonga”
(Whittall 2020). Much of the land to the south of the Fontana townsite, including the subject
property, 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.
“In 1926, the N.O.T. alignment became part of the newly created U.S. Highway 66. And
it was gradually improved and widened after that date” (Whittall 2020). “By 1930 the Fontana
Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time
settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Cornford 1995).
Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers
of steel west of the Mississippi River. The facility was financed and built by the wartime
government agency known as the Defense Plant Corporation (DPC) and was one of two steel plants
in the west (Graves 2009). To provide for his workers’ health needs, Henry J. Kaiser constructed
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–15
the Fontana Kaiser Permanente medical facility, which is now the largest managed care
organization in the United States. According to Cornford (1995):
For hundreds of Dustbowl refugees from the Southwest, still working in the
orchards at the beginning of World War Two, Kaiser Steel was the happy ending
to the Grapes of Wrath. Construction of the mill drained the San Bernardino Valley
of workers, creating an agricultural labor shortage that was not relieved until the
coming of the braceros in 1943. Kaiser originally believed that he could apply his
Richmond methods to shaping the Fontana workforce: leaving the construction
crews in place and “training them in ten days to make steel” under the guidance of
experts hired from the East. But he underestimated the craft knowledge and
folklore, communicated only through hereditary communities of steelworkers, that
were essential to making steel. Urgent appeals, therefore, were circulated through
the steel valleys of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, recruiting draft-exempt
steel specialists for Fontana.[61]
The impact of five thousand steelworkers and their families on local rusticity was
predictably shattering. The available housing stock in Fontana and western San
Bernardino County (also coveted by incoming military families) was quickly
saturated. With few zoning ordinances to control the anarchy, temporary and
substandard shelters of every kind sprouted up in Fontana and neighboring districts
like Rialto, Bloomington, and Cucamonga. Most of the original blast furnace crew
was housed in a gerrybuilt trailer park known affectionately as “Kaiserville.” Later
arrivals were often forced to live out of their cars. The old Fontana Farms colonists
came under great pressure to sell to developers and speculators. Others converted
their chicken coops to shacks and rented them to single workers—a primitive
housing form that was still common through the 1950s.[62]
Although areas of Fontana retained their Millerian charm, especially the redtiled
village center along Sierra with its art-deco theater and prosperous stores,
boisterous, often rowdy, juke joints and roadhouses created a different ambience
along Arrow Highway and Foothill Boulevard. Neighboring Rialto—presumably
the location of Eddie Mars’s casino in Chandler’s The Big Sleep —acquired a
notorious reputation as a wide-open gambling center and L.A. mob hangout (a
reputation which it has recovered in the 1990s as the capital of the Inland Empire’s
crack gangs). Meanwhile the ceaseless truck traffic from the mill, together with the
town’s adjacency to Route 66 (and, today, to Interstates 10 and 15), made Fontana
a major regional trucking center, with bustling twenty-four-hour fuel stops and
cafes on its outskirts …
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–16
Boomtown Fontana of the 1940s ceased to be a coherent community or cultural
fabric. Instead it was a colorful but dissonant bricolage of Sunkist growers,
Slovene chicken ranchers, gamblers, mobsters, over-the-road truckers,
industrialized Okies, braceros, the Army Air Corps (at nearby bases), and
transplanted steelworkers and their families.
Wallis (2018) elaborates:
Towards the tail end of the war, Kaiser would propose a massive steel deal in an
attempt to rejuvenate the Kaiser steel company. This deal would expand the
company because Kaiser foresaw a spike in postwar steel production. “At one point
he became expansive in the outlining of Los Angeles’ probable role in the immense
industrial development of Southern California. [3] Kaiser had a feeling that not
only would items like washing machines and stove production spike after the war
but rail and automobile production would spike as well. “…overall steel production
of 1,800,000 a year of steel products ranging from ships, washing machines,
housing structural shapes, utensils, roofing and stoves to rails and sheet metal for
tinplate and most size pipes.” [4] Kaisers deal and his bold productions would see
the companies steel production increase greatly after the war to a point where it
actually is said to have broken steel production records. “Henry J. Kaiser said in a
year-end statement today that a record breaking 853,000 tons of steel ingots were
produced at the Fontana plant in 1948.
Following the war:
… the [Kaiser] Health Plan in Fontana went public, and with the strong support of
labor unions like the Retail Clerks International Union and the International
Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union [ILWU] it began to grow throughout the
region. The first facility outside of Fontana was established in Harbor City in 1950
when the entire West Coast ILWU signed up for the plan. (Cushing 2013)
At that time, Henry Kaiser expanded his efforts beyond the steel mill itself and into experimental
aviation and mass-produced housing. Although his “venture into experimental aviation was short-
lived,” he had “substantial success” in the field of mass-produced housing (Cornford 1995). “For
two decades he had been building homes for his dam and shipyard workers, even master planning
entire communities” (Cornford 1995). “Shortly after V-J Day Kaiser dramatically announced a
‘housing revolution’” consisting of “‘a nearly 100 mile plant-to-site assembly line’ in Southern
California (where he predicted that immigration would reach a million per year in the immediate
postwar period)” (Cornford 1995). This assembly line consisted of the “construction of ten
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–17
thousand prefabricated homes in the Westchester, North Hollywood, and Panorama City areas”
(Cornford 1995):
After the turbulent, sometimes violent, transitions of the 1940s, Fontana settled
down into the routines of a young milltown. The Korean War boom enlarged the
Kaiser workforce by almost 50 per cent and stimulated a new immigration from the
East that reinforced the social weight of traditional steelworker families. The
company devoted new resources to organizing the leisure time of its employees,
while the union took a more active role in the community. The complex craft
subcultures of the plant intersected with ethnic self-organization to generate
competing cliques and differential pathways for mobility. At the same time, the
familiar sociology of plant-community interaction was overlaid by lifestyles
peculiar to Fontana’s Millerian heritage and its location on the borders of
metropolitan Los Angeles and the Mojave Desert. Although locals continued to
joke that Fontana was just Aliquippa with sunshine, it was evolving into a sui
generis working-class community. (Cornford 1995)
The increased immigration to the area during and after the war created a housing boom
equivalent to that seen in other areas focused upon wartime production, such as San Diego (City
of San Diego 2007) and Seattle (Stropes et al. 2019). One of the most common architectural styles
during the Post-war boom was the Minimal Traditional style. Between 1935 and 1950, the
Minimal Traditional home was one of the few designs approved by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA). “In an explosion of building at the war’s end, 5.1 million homes were built
between 1946 and 1949. Minimal Traditionals made up a significant portion of these” (McAlester
2015). “By 1950 the Minimal Traditional was being replaced by Ranch homes. Postwar prosperity
meant that larger homes could be built and financed, and the Ranch was a perfect fit for the tastes
of a new decade” (McAlester 2015).
The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952 “and shortly after, the freeway
system in LA would start to divert traffic away from Route 66” (Whittall 2020). However, despite
traffic being diverted away from the Fontana area:
In the 1950s and ’60s, Fontana was home to a drag racing strip that was a venue in
the NHRA circuit. Mickey Thompson’s Fontana International Dragway was also
referred to as Fontana Drag City or Fontana Drag Strip. The original Fontana strip
is long since defunct, but the owners of NASCAR’s new Auto Club
Speedway opened a new NHRA-sanctioned drag strip in Fontana in mid-2006 to
resurrect Fontana’s drag-racing heritage. (Kiddle Encyclopedia 2022)
“In 1964, Route 66 was replaced by the freeway and two years later, Fontana joined the city of
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–18
Duarte trying to have a large sign posted in San Bernardino to announce that Route 66 remained a
through route into Los Angeles, they failed” (Whittall 2020).
Kaiser Steel was eventually closed in the 1980s; however, the city has since become a
transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic
2005; City of Fontana 2018b).
Between 1980 and 1987, Fontana’s population doubled from 35,000 to 70,000, assisted by
the Fontana Redevelopment Agency, who provided incentives for housing developers to build
within the city (City of Fontana 2018c; Cornford 1995). This process led to the first specific plan
and development agreement for the SouthRidge residential area. Residential development
continued to grow through the 1990s; however, commercial activities in the downtown area
declined as new commercial developments near freeways and the new residential areas pulled
shopping away from the historic downtown core (City of Fontana 2018c).
History of the Project Area
An aerial photograph from 1938 shows the southern portion of the project as vacant
agricultural land while the northern portion of the project contains various pens and livestock
holding areas. The subject property was originally part of the Fontana Farms hog ranch. The hog
ranch opened in 1921 (San Bernardino County 2022). By 1925, the hog ranch was one of the
largest of such operations in the world with a population of 44,244 hogs (Ballester and Goodman
2015). Between the early 1920s and the late 1950s, the hogs were fed garbage shipped in by rail
from Los Angeles, which was dumped directly into the pens:
This entailed a tremendous job of organization and planning for the procuring,
feeding, breeding, shipping and handling of hogs numbering up to 67,300 the
ranch’s biggest year. A special spur was run from the mainline railroad track to
allow the gondolas bearing the garbage to travel down the middle of the ranch while
a huge crane mounted on a railroad car distributed the garbage into the feeding
areas [Plate 1.3–1]. (Evans 1989)
Accounts of silver settings, phonograph needles, and other expensive non-food related items found
in the garbage were commonplace (Blackstock 2017; Evans 1989; Scalf 2018).
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–19
The Fontana Farms Company deeded the ranch to M.H. Lerner, Sidney Lerner, and A.A.
Spiegle in 1945 who later deeded the operation to Riverside Grain and Milling around 1948
(Ballester and Goodman 2015). A historic aerial photograph from 1948 shows the continued use
of the current project within the hog ranch (Plate 1.3–2). Evans (1989) indicates that the hog ranch
shut down in 1950. By 1959, most elements of the hog ranch had been removed (Ballester and
Goodman 2015). An aerial photograph from 1959 shows much of the subject property had been
cleared and portions of property appear to have been graded (Plate 1.3–3). The clearing of the
property continued and by 1967, all remnants of the former hog ranch appear to have been removed
from the subject property (Plate 1.3–4). The 1985 aerial photograph shows that the property had
been completely cleared, while the northwestern corner of the property appears to have been
recently graded. By 1994, the northwestern corner appears to contain a commercial/industrial
storage yard and the 2002 aerial photograph shows the property containing some structures and
being utilized as a commercial/industrial yard for a prefabricated/modular structure business.
More recent aerial photographs show the addition and removal of prefabricated structures and/or
trailers throughout the years, but no significant changes have been made to the property since 2002.
Plate 1.3–1: Hogs being fed by steam shovel at the Fontana Farms hog ranch circa 1935.
(Photograph courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library)
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–23
1.3.1 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search was conducted utilizing data obtained from the SCCIC
at CSU Fullerton for the project and a one-mile search radius. The results of the records search
indicate that no resources have been recorded within the subject property. However, 24 resources
(eight prehistoric and 16 historic) are located within one mile of the project. The prehistoric
resources consist of three artifacts scatters and five isolates, while the historic resources are
primarily associated with the built environment (Table 1.3–1).
Table 1.3–1
Cultural Resources Located Within
One Mile of the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
Site(s) Description
SBR-1632, SBR-4549, and SBR-4550 Prehistoric artifact scatter
P-36-060216, P-36-060217, P-36-060219,
P-36-060221, and P-36-060222 Prehistoric isolate
SBR-4584H Historic Declez Ranch /
Felice Pagliuso Winery/Chapel Site
SBR-7426H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad
Declezville Branch Line
SBR-7795H Historic foundations, sidewalks, and trash deposits
SBR-9862H Historic gasoline filling station feature
SBR-10,330H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment
P-36-020026, P-36-020027, P-36-020028,
P-36-020029, P-36-020030, P-36-020031,
P-36-029643, and P-36-033192
Historic single-family residence(s)
P-36-026051 Historic transmission line
SBR-28,639H Historic refuse scatter and concrete footings
associated with the Fontana Farms hog ranch
SBR-29,467H Historic sewage treatment plant
The records search data also identified 28 studies that have been conducted within one mile
of the project (see Appendix B), none of which included the subject property.
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
• Historic aerial photographs (1938 to 2020)
• San Bernardino County Property Information Management System (PIMS) data
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–24
• The USGS 15' 1896 San Bernardino, 7.5' 1943 Fontana, 7.5' 1953 Fontana, and 7.5'
1975 Fontana topographic maps
No archaeological resources were identified as a result of any of the above sources; however, as
discussed above, the aerial photographs show the early use of the property as part of the Fontana
Farms hog ranch before being cleared and developed for industrial/commercial use. The historic
USGS maps do not show the hog ranch facilities within the property; however, on the 1953
Fontana USGS map, a railroad spur is shown as extending onto the subject property, likely utilized
for feeding the hogs as indicated above. Based upon the San Bernardino County PIMS data, all
permanent structures within the property were constructed after 2000.
1.3.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
At BFSA’s discretion, a SLF search was requested from the NAHC on September 15, 2022.
The search was conducted to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations
of religious or ceremonial importance, not recorded with the SCCIC, are present within the project.
However, as of the date of this report, the search results have not been received from the NAHC.
All correspondence can be found within Appendix C.
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 California Register of Historical Resources (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,
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–25
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military,
or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided
the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the
whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
“historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC
SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of
the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section
5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially
impaired.
2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or
b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–26
the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant; or,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the
guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and
site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains
unique archaeological resources.
4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect
on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are
noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address
impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA
process.
Section 15064.5(d-e) contains 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:
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.0–27
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains
from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.0–1
2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary object of this study is to identify any cultural resources, should they exist,
within the project. 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 project included the survey of the 40.01-acre property. Given
the area involved, the research goals for this project are focused upon realistic study options. Since
the main objective of the investigation is 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.
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. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an
archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and research were
undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural 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;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and
4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources
identified.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search and
an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 40.01-acre property. 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
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 15 to 20 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface.
Photographs documenting overall survey conditions were taken frequently.
3.2 Results of the Field Survey
Senior Project Archaeologist Andrew Garrison conducted the pedestrian survey of the
project on October 17, 2022. At the time of the survey, the property was primarily characterized
as previously developed and containing structures and a storage yard for ModSpace, a company
that specializes in prefabricated trailers and modular structures. Generally, the property appears
to have been completely cleared and graded for the industrial development that occupies the
property (Plate 3.2–1). Buildings, hardscape, gravel, and commercial landscaping cover the
entirety of the project. Due the existing development, the natural ground surface was not visible.
Collectively, seven structures that appeared to have currently or previously been utilized by
ModSpace are located on the property. These buildings include a permanent office structure which
is currently boarded up, a steel warehouse building, a manufacturing facility comprised of multiple
modular buildings, and four prefabricated trailer structures (Plates 3.2–2 to 3.2–4). In addition,
the company’s storage yard contains hundreds of modular prefabricated structures of various sizes
(Plate 3.2–5). Vegetation primarily consists of maintained planters and commercial landscaping
located at the entrances of the project along Hemlock and Beech avenues (Plate 3.2–6).
The survey did not result in the identification of any historic or prehistoric cultural
resources within the project. As previously noted, all structures found on the property postdate
2000 and, therefore, do not meet the age threshold (50 years) for consideration as historic resources
under CEQA criteria.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–2
Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the project, facing north.
Plate 3.2–2: View of the boarded-up office building in the northwest
portion of the project, facing northeast.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–3
Plate 3.2–3: View of the steel warehouse and prefabricated buildings in
the center of the property, facing southeast.
Plate 3.2–4: View of the manufacturing facility in the center of the project,
facing northeast.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.0–4
Plate 3.2–5: View of the modular structure storage yard, facing northeast.
Plate 3.2–6: View of the Hemlock Avenue entrance to the property
showing the commercial landscaping, facing northeast.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–1
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The cultural resources study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project was completed in
accordance with City of Fontana environmental policies and CEQA significance evaluation
criteria. The records search identified 24 previously recorded resources within one mile of the
project, none of which are within the project boundaries. However, the most common resource
types are associated with the built environment. Although the property did at one time contain
elements of the Fontana Farms hog ranch, the property has been cleared and graded since the
1950s. This characterization of the property as disturbed is relevant to the consideration of cultural
resources being present within the project. Therefore, although the existing development on the
subject property restricted visibility of the natural ground surface, based upon the documentation
of past ground disturbance, there is little potential for cultural resources to be present/disturbed by
the proposed project. Should any cultural resources be present within the property, they would
most likely be historic material associated with the garbage dumps from Los Angeles fed to the
hogs that were previously on the property. However, if such material does exist within the project,
it would have no provenience and, therefore, would not be archaeologically significant.
The subject property is completely disturbed, currently covered with buildings, asphalt and
gravel, and commercial landscaping. No evidence of any cultural resources was observed during
the survey and based on the review of aerial photographs and records search results it is unlikely
any significant resources exist within the subject property. As such, archeological monitoring of
grading is not recommended or warranted based upon the findings of this cultural resources
assessment. However, in accordance with the MMRP in the FEIR of the Fontana General Plan
Update 2015-2035 (City of Fontana 2018a), the following mitigation measures are recommended
for the project:
1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction
activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study.
With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological
sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or
focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a
local government action) to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.0–2
important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA
guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original
illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
2) Where consistent with applicable local, State, and federal law and deemed
appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall consider the
following requests by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Morongo Band of
Mission Indians:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during
construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of
the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall
project may continue during this period;
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity
(as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior
standards) and the City/project applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native
American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards) as soon as possible;
• Utilize a Native American monitor from the appropriate Native American
entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards) where deemed appropriate or required by the City,
during initial ground-disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys, and/or
cultural resource excavations.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.0–1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the project was directed by Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Senior Project Archaeologist
Andrew Garrison. The report text was prepared by Andrew Garrison 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. 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–1
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
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.
Anicic, John Charles, Jr.
1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms
Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society.
Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service.
2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina;
Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California.
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California.
Ballester, Daniel and John D. Goodman, II
2015 Site Form for Site P-36-28639. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center
at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
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).
Blackstock, Joe
2017 How Fontana Hog Farm Workers Found Silver. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–2
Electronic document, https://www.dailybulletin.com/2017/12/18/how-fontana-hog-
farm-workers-found-silver/, accessed October 18, 2022.
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
City of Fontana
2018a Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, Final Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document,
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update, accessed June 29, 2021.
2018b About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About
-The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018.
2018c Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document,
https://www.fontana.org/Document Center/View/26716/54-Cultural-Resources,
accessed June 29, 2021.
City of San Diego
2007 San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. Submitted to the State of California
Office of Historic Preservation and on file at the City of San Diego, San Diego,
California.
Cohen, K.M. and P.L. Gibbard
2011 Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years.
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on
Stratigraphy), Cambridge, England. Electronic document,
http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart-
v2011.jpg.pdf, accessed June 29, 2021.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–3
Cornford, Danial (editor)
1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and Oxford, California.
Curray, Joseph R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of
the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Cushing, Lincoln
2013 The roots of Southern California Kaiser Permanente. Electronic document,
https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/our-history/the-roots-of-southern-
california-kaiser-permanente, accessed April 18, 2022.
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.
Evans, Kimberly
1989 The community of Fontana: An integrated approach. California State University, San
Bernardino. Theses Digitization Project (444). Electronic document,
https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/444, accessed October 18, 2022.
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
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–4
California, Los Angeles.
Graves, Steven M.
2010 Geography 417, California for Educators: World War II and the late 20th Century.
Electronic document, https://www.csun.edu/~sg4002/courses/417/417_lectures/
417_post_war.htm, accessed April 18, 2022.
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.
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Kiddle Encyclopedia
2022 Auto Club Speedway facts for kids. Electronic document,
https://kids.kiddle.co/Auto_Club_Speedway, accessed April 18, 2022.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–5
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.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller
2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2022 Web Soil Survey: An online soil survey browser. Electronic document,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, accessed October 18,
2022.
Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. In The History of San Diego 2. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. In The History of San Diego 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.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–6
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History. 2nd ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
San Bernardino County
2022 150 Years of County History. Electronic document,
https://www.sbcounty.gov/main/pages/150Years.aspx, accessed October 18, 2022.
Scalf, Darlene
2018 History Room at Lewis Library Provides Lots of Interesting Information About
Fontana. Fontana Herald News. Electronic document,
https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/news/history-room-at-lewis-library-provides-
lots-of-interesting-information-about-fontana/article_893a2342-fd4a-11e7-8d08-
7726b9a7703e.html, accessed October 18, 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.
Stropes, Tracy A., J.R.K. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith
2019 A Cultural Resources Assessment for the 8801 East Marginal Way Project, City of
Tukwila, King County, Washington. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished
report on file at the City of Tukwila, Tukwila, Washington.
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701–710.
Wallis, Eileen V.
2018 World War II in California’s Inland Empire. Electronic document,
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/world-war-ii-in-californias-inland-empire/kaiser-steel,
accessed April 18, 2022.
Whittall, Austin
2020 The History of Route 66. Electronic document, https://www.theroute-
66.com/history.html, accessed April 18, 2022.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.0–7
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 Resource Assessment for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project, City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 237-131-25, -26, and -27). 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 22-114 Hemlock 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.
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa-ca.com
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009
Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005
Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005
Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal
agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and
perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records
checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric
lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private
clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological
monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed
projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory
direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California
Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant-
funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California
Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural
resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project,
City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San
Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La
Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside
County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel
Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Mills Act application.
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys,
Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian
Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic
Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from
CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual
Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those
Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of
experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Cultural Resources Study for the 22-114 Hemlock Avenue Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)