The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutC - Cultural Assessment CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION RESOURCES AND CARE CENTER PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 20235530.001A May 2023 Project #20235530.001A Page ii of v May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder A Report Prepared for: City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 On behalf of EcoTierra Consulting 5776-D Lindero Canyon Road #414 Westlake Village, CA 91362 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION RESOURCES AND CARE CENTER PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: David Sosa, M.A., RPA and Ryan Nordstrom, Archaeologist KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: 619.831.4600 Fax: 619.232.1039 May 2023 Kleinfelder Project No: 20235530.001A Project #20235530.001A Page iii of v May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder MANAGEMENT SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________________________________ EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. retained Kleinfelder to conduct a Cultural Resources Review and Sensitivity Assessment for a proposed community care center on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0232-171-05, 0232-171-06, 0232-171-07, and 0232-171-08 (Northern Project Area) and the redesignation of APNs 0232-171-09, 0232-171-12, 0232-171-13, and 0232-171-14 (Southern Project Area) from open space to industrial use, located within the community of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Project; Appendix A). The City of Fontana requires a cultural resources assessment to satisfy requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following report includes the methods and results of an intensive pedestrian survey, Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and background research to identify the presence or absence of cultural resources within the Project area. On March 21, 2023, Kleinfelder requested a CHRIS records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University Fullerton, and an SLF search with the NAHC. The SCCIC record search results were negative for cultural resources within the Project area, with two cultural resources identified within the 0.25-mile radius (Appendix B). The NAHC responded indicating that the SLF records search was negative for Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project area and the surrounding 0.25-mile radius. The NAHC stated that the absence of specific site infromation in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any Project area and provided a Native American contact list to consult for any additional informational (Appendix C). On May 9, 2023, Kleinfelder conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the 7-acre Northern Project Area using walking transects at 15-meter intervals. No cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey of the Northern Project Area. The Southern Project Area was inaccessible for survey. The CHRIS records search, NAHC SLF search, and intensive pedestrian survey resulted in negative findings. Additionally, the Project area has been subject to previous ground disturbance through mechanical grading. Therefore, the likelihood of subsurface cultural resources within the Northern Project Area is low. The Southern Project Area was inaccessible for survey; therefore, a cultural resources survey and findings report will be required prior to issuance of any ground-disturbance-related permits or other construction related activities. Project #20235530.001A Page iv of v May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder TABLE OF CONTENTS ____________________________________________________________________________________ Section Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. III 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................... 1 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ......................................................................... 2 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Natural Setting ........................................................................................................ 6 4 CULTURAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Prehistoric Setting .................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Enthographic Background ......................................................................................... 8 4.3 Historic Context ..................................................................................................... 10 5 BACKGROUND RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 14 5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search .......................................................................... 14 5.2 Sacred Lands File Search ......................................................................................... 15 5.3 Historic Map Review .............................................................................................. 15 6 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................... 18 6.1 Field Survey Results ................................................................................................ 18 7 SENSITIVITY OF BURIED RESOURCES ................................................................................... 19 7.1 Sensitivity for Buried Prehistoric Resources .............................................................. 19 7.2 Sensitivity for Buried Historic Period Resources ........................................................ 19 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 20 9 PREPARERES’ QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 21 10 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 22 TABLES TABLE 1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Studies within 0.25-mile of the Project Area ........... 14 TABLE 2: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25-mile of the Project Area ..................... 15 APPENDICES A Project Maps B South Central Coastal Information Center Records Search Results (Confidential) C Sacred Lands File Search Results D Survey Photographs Project #20235530.001A Page 1 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 1 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________________________________________ EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. retained Kleinfelder to conduct a Cultural Resources Review and Sensitivity Assessment for a proposed community care center on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 0232-171-05, 0232-171-06, 0232-171-07, and 0232-171-08 (Northern Project Area) and the redesigned APNs 0232-171- 09, 0232-171-12, 0232-171-13, and 0232-171-14 (Southern Project Area) from open space to industrial use, located within the community of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Project). The proposed Project site is in a developed neighborhood within the City of Fontana, in San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The proposed Project site is 4.2 miles east from the junction of Interstate 15 with historic Route 66, 5.35 miles east–northeast from the junction of Interstate 10 and Interstate 15, and is located in Township 1 South, Range 6 West, and Section 12 of the Fontana 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (Figure 2). As the Lead Agency, the City of Fontana required the study to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000, et seq.). 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to construct a community care center to serve the homeless on four undeveloped parcels within the Northern Project Area. The total Project footprint is approximately 7 acres. The Southern Project Area, which is approximately 18 acres, will be redesignated from open space to industrial use (Figure 3). Project #20235530.001A Page 2 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT _____________________________________________________________________________________________ This section reviews the most relevant state, county, and city laws, ordinances, and regulations for the protection of cultural resources and for which this study provides the initial baseline data for assessments of impacts to cultural resources. 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify and reduce, if feasible, the significant, negative environmental impacts of land use decisions. CEQA Guidelines: Title 14 CCR Section 15064.4 subsection (b) This section of CEQA defines “historical resource,” addresses reburial options for Native American remains, and presents the preferred mitigation of historical resources. CEQA Guidelines: Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5 This section of CEQA identifies which resources are considered cultural resources, as stated below. • Resource(s) listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR; Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5(a)(1). • Resource(s) either listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or in a “local register of historical resources” unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant,” (Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(2)). • Resources identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the PRC [Title 14 CCR Section 15065.5(a)(2)]. In addition, Subdivision (g) provides the guidelines referenced below regarding historical surveys. A resource identified as significant in a historical survey may be listed in the CRHR if the survey meets all the following criteria: • The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; • The survey and the survey documents were prepared in accordance with procedures and requirements of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP); • The resource is evaluated and determined by OHP to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Historic Resources Inventory Form; • If the survey is five years or older at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the CRHR, the survey is updated to identify historic resources that have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminished the significance of the resource; Project #20235530.001A Page 3 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder • Resources identified during such surveys are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise; and • A final category of historical resources may be determined at the discretion of the lead agency when: Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, education, 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 [Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(3)]. CEQA Guidelines: Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(b) Section 15124(b) addresses mitigation and states that the preferred mitigation for historical resources is treatment in a manner consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. The preferred mitigation for archaeological sites is preservation in place. CEQA Guidelines: Title 14 CCR Section 15064.7 Thresholds of Significance This section encourages agencies to develop thresholds of significance to be used in determining potential impacts and defines the term “cumulatively significant.” CEQA Guidelines: Title 14 CCR Section 15126.4 Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects,” sub-section (b) Mitigation Measures Related to Impacts on Historical Resources Subsection (b) discusses: • Impacts of maintenance, repair, stabilization, restoration, conservation, or reconstruction of a historical resource; • Documentation as a mitigation measure; and • Mitigation through avoidance of damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature, preferably by preservation in place, or by data recovery through excavation if avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible; data recovery must be conducted in accordance with an adopted data recovery plan. CEQA Appendix G Section V This appendix is a checklist that identifies potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources, and/or human remains. The checklist includes the following questions, which are used to determine if a potential project would: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; and • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Project #20235530.001A Page 4 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Questions on the checklist are answered to assess whether impacts associated with a project would be potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant, or have no impact. The final determination of project-related impacts is made by the lead agency on a project. CEQA Historical Resources CEQA defines historically significant resources as “resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)” (PRC Section 5024.1). A cultural resource may be considered historically significant if the resource is 45 years old or older; possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and meets any of the following criteria for listing on the CRHR: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. 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 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (PRC Section 5024.1). Cultural resources are buildings, sites, landscapes, traditional cultural properties, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if a project will have a significant impact on important cultural resources, deemed “historically significant,” then project alternatives and mitigation measures must be considered. Additionally, any proposed project that may affect historically significant cultural resources must be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and comment prior to project approval by the responsible agency and prior to construction. Public Resources Codes The following provides a summary of California PRC that apply to cultural resources. PRC Section 5020.1 This section defines several terms, including those provided below. • “Historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. • “Substantial adverse change” means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired. PRC Section 5024.1 This section establishes the CRHR. A resource may be listed as a historical resource in the CRHR if it meets the NRHP criteria or the following state criteria: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Project #20235530.001A Page 5 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • 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 • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. PRC Section 21084.1 This section sets forth that a project that may cause a significant adverse change in a significant historical resource is a project that may be considered to have adverse effects on the environment. Historical resources not listed on the CRHR or other local lists may still be considered historical resources at the discretion of the lead agency on the project. Project #20235530.001A Page 6 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.1 NATURAL SETTING The City of Fontana is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The downtown elevation is 1,284 feet (391 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL), and the Project area averages 1,240 feet (378 meters) AMSL. The City of Fontana is bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south. The Cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Kaiser, and Ontario are situated just west of Fontana, City of Rialto to the east, unincorporated community of Bloomington to the southeast, and Jurupa Valley to the south. The Project is located within the Peninsular Ranges, south of the Cucamonga fault zone and west of the San Jacinto fault zone. The Peninsular Ranges are a series of ranges separated by northwest trending valleys, sub-parallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The geology of the Project area is Late-Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial fan deposits of unconsolidated and cobbly alluvium of the Lytle Creek Fan (Morton and Bovard 2003). The Quaternary sediments are in proximity to the Lytle Creek Wash, which runs generally from northwest to southeast and is located about 5.5 miles northeast of the Project area. The Project site is located in a residential and industrial setting, within the City of Fontana in San Bernardino County. The land surface within the Project vicinity is relatively flat. The average annual rainfall is 15.32 inches with an average daily high temperature of 79.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and low of 52.3 degrees F (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2023). Soils mapped in the Project site and vicinity are dominated by a Tujunga Series fine sandy loam, common to alluvial fans and floodplains with 0 to 12 percent slopes. These soils are classified as somewhat excessively drained and commonly used for grazing and farming. These soils have a high saturated hydraulic conductivity, and their parent material is alluvium derived from granite (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2023). The proposed Project area is located in a sparsely vegetated and disturbed area (Figures 3 and 4). The site is bordered by Arrow Boulevard to the north, an industrial site to the west and southwest, open space to the south and east, and mixed residential to the southeast. The surrounding land use is primarily industrial, commercial, and residential with historic Route 66 running east to west, about 0.5 mile north of the site. Project #20235530.001A Page 7 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 4 CULTURAL SETTING The following sections present an overview of the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic information of the region. Information from LSA Associates, Inc. (Duke 2010) and Chambers Group, Inc. (Granger and Bodmer 2014), as well as additional research, was used to provide a basic understanding of the natural, cultural, ethnographic, and historic context of the proposed Project area. The development of an overall chronological framework for the San Bernardino County region is hindered by the lack of distinct stratigraphic layers of cultural sequences and corresponding absolute dates, which are limited for this region. Human occupation in what is now the State of California is believed to have occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago before present (BP) (Wallace 1978). In order to understand Native American cultures in California prior to European contact, archaeologists have devised chronological frameworks that endeavor to correlate the observable technological and cultural changes in the archaeological record to distinct periods. Several different prehistoric cultural chronologies have been proposed for California (Moratto 1984); however, results from archaeological investigations in this region have yet to be synthesized into an overall chronological framework. 4.1 PREHISTORIC SETTING Wallace’s chronology (1955, 1978) is currently among the most widely used prehistoric cultural chronologies for Southern California and has since been modified by others (Warren 1968; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 1984). The human occupation of Southern California is presently believed to have begun by at least 10,000 years BP and as early as 12,000 BP. Wallace initially referred to the earliest stage of human occupation as the Early Man Horizon (I); however, the period is now more commonly referred to as the Paleoindian Period (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). The archaeological record indicates that a hunting-based subsistence economy dominated the period between approximately 10,000 and 6,000 years BP. While the beginning of this period remains the topic of considerable debate, inland sites are typically characterized by a material culture consisting of lithic tools that includes projectile points and expedient tools such as choppers and scrapers. Many of the archaeological sites from this period contain projectile points in association with butchered bones from extant mammals indicating that most of the previously hunted species were the same as those large game animals that still roam the land today. Bones of extinct megafaunal species have been found but not in association with human artifacts. Although small animal bones and groundstone tools are rarely found within sites of this period, small game and vegetal foods were still likely exploited on a somewhat limited basis. A lack of deep cultural deposits from this period suggests that groups were smaller and did not remain in one location for extended periods (Wallace 1978). Groundstone tools and milling features become more pronounced by 6,000 years BP, at which point there was a shift in focus from hunting towards a greater reliance on vegetal resources. Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much higher density of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter. This period, which extended until around 3,000 years BP, is sometimes referred to as the “Millingstone Horizon” (Wallace 1978). Projectile points are found in sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to before 6,000 years BP. An increase in the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period (Wallace 1978). Project #20235530.001A Page 8 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder In sites dating to after 3,000 years BP, archaeological evidence indicates that reliance on both plant gathering and hunting continued as in the previous period, with more specialized adaptation to particular environments. Mortars and pestles were added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Chipped-stone tools became more refined and specialized, and bone tools were more common. During this period, known as the “Late Horizon,” new peoples from the Great Basin began entering southern California. These individuals spoke a language of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock, seem to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. The exact time of their entry into the region is not known; however, they were present in southern California during the final phase of prehistory (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). Population densities during this period were higher than before, and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities along the coast and interior valleys (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996). Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with their own geographical territory and language or dialect (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). These were most likely the basis for the groups encountered by the first Europeans during the eighteenth century (Wallace 1978). Despite the regional differences, many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction (Erlandson 1994). The introduction of the bow and arrow into the region sometime around 1,500 to 1,000 years BP is indicated by the presence of small projectile points (Moratto 1984). 4.2 ENTHOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND The Project vicinity was traditionally occupied by two native groups: the Gabrielino and the Serrano. The groups are from the Takic (Uto-Aztecan or Shoshonean) linguistic group (Kroeber 1925) and resembled one another in terms of culture and tradition, often interacting across their permeable ethnographic boundaries. The cultural territories of the Gabrielino and Serrano are located within the vicinity of Project area, and the land is still considered part of their traditional use area. For this reason, the Gabrielino and Serrano ethnohistoric backgrounds are discussed below. 4.2.1 Gabrielino The name “Gabrielino” is Spanish in origin and refers to the people who occupied lands surrounding the historic-era Mission San Gabriel (Bean and Smith 1978a). Contemporary descendants refer to themselves as “Tongva,” or “people of the earth” (Gabrielino-Tongva Indian Tribe 2023). At the time of Spanish contact, the Gabrielino (Tongva) territory expanded throughout present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties and into the southwest portion of San Bernardino County, and included the Santa Ana River, San Gabriel River, and Los Angeles River watersheds (Bean and Smith 1978a). The Gabrielino culture occupied an area as far west as the Santa Monica Mountains, north into the San Fernando Valley, east to San Bernardino, and south to the coastline, and included the Southern Channel Islands of Santa Barbara, San Clemente, Santa Catalina, and San Nicholas (Bean and Smith 1978a; McCawley 1996). As the most populous aboriginal group in Southern California, the Gabrielino were also the wealthiest and most powerful (Bean and Smith 1978a). Gabrielino territory provided access to a wide range and variety of resources which guided their settlement patterns. The Gabrielino resided in permanent villages that were surrounded by smaller seasonal resource-gathering camps. Villages were composed of multiple families/clans, where the Project #20235530.001A Page 9 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder seasonal camps were mostly tended to by smaller family groups. Larger primary settlements and subsistence villages were continuously occupied along prominent watersheds and included coastal areas from San Pedro to Topanga Canyon. Secondary gathering camps were typically inland, near sage stands, pine forests, and oak groves (Bean and Smith 1978a). As typical for California seasonal hunters and gatherers, the Gabrielino diet varied by location and included plant foods such as acorns, piñon nuts, seeds, roots, tubers, as well as wild fruits, sage, yucca, cacti bulbs, and buckwheat. Plants were also used medicinally to provide relief from a wide range of ailments. Similar to many California tribal groups, acorns were a dietary staple. Acorns were either processed into a fine powder or stored for less productive seasons. The inland Gabrielino supplemented their diet by hunting rabbits, rodents, birds, deer, and other game, while the coastal people maintained a marine diet including shellfish, fish, sea mammals, and waterfowl. Smaller game animals were harvested with nets, snares, and traps, and large mammals were typically hunted with bow and arrow. Fishing took place along interior watersheds and included the use of lines, hooks, spears, basketry, nets, and bow and arrow. Hunting sea mammals usually included the use of harpoons, clubs, and spear-throwers (Bean and Smith 1978a). Local vegetation was also widely used to construct shelters. The remnant material culture often found in association within Gabrielino occupational contexts includes a variety of chipped stone tools including projectile points and knives; ground stone tools and features such as pestles, hand stones, metates, portable mortars, and bedrock mortars; and wooden objects such as bows and digging sticks (Bean and Smith 1978a). There is little known about the social and political structure of the Gabrielino. Bean and Smith (1978a) suggest the social classes were divided into three levels, including an elite class, a middle class, and everyone else (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978a). The elite class included the chief, their immediate family, and the wealthy. The middle class comprised those who were linked to long-established lineages, as well as those who were well to do. The remainder was made up of everyone else. Villages were segmentary and comprised politically autonomous, non-localized lineages. Each village had a chief who came from the most dominant lineage. The status of chief was often passed to the eldest son of that dominant lineage. Chiefly duties involved arbitrating disputes, participating in peace negotiations, and/or preparing for warfare (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978a). Each family lineage had a leader. Smaller family groups would separate from the village seasonally to exploit an abundance of resources and return to the village after harvest was complete. Shamans were also leaders of the spiritual realm, which included ceremonial occasions for rain, healing, and/or protection (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978a). While the meaning of the sun and moon remain unknown, the Gabrielino had names for the four cardinal directions, divided the year into two seasons based on the 10 moons of the solstice, named stars, and developed a spiritual meaning for natural places, occasions, and events. The “people of the earth” valued maleness, respected age, practiced intense secrecy, and recognized sacred beings distinguished as the Crow, Eagle, Owl, and Raven (Bean and Smith 1978a). 4.2.2 Serrano The term “Serrano” is Spanish for mountaineers, or highlanders, and is a name that reflects the ethnographic cultural territory in and around the San Bernardino Mountains. The Serrano referred to themselves as “Takhtam,” meaning the people, where Individuals identified by the name of their particular clan or village, frequently referred to as “tribes” (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978b). Project #20235530.001A Page 10 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder The Serrano language is part of the Takic subfamily of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family, which includes a wide variety of language groups extending as far south as the Basin of Mexico. Closer to home, the culture groups neighboring the Serrano to the south of the San Bernardino Mountains—the Gabrielino, Luiseño, and Cahuilla—were also Takic-language speakers. The Serrano appear to have been most closely linguistically aligned with the Cahuilla people, the easternmost of the three (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano, and many neighboring language groups, were organized into independent but interconnected village communities. Each of these villages consisted of one or more patrilineal clans that belonged to one of two exogamous moieties, named coyote or wildcat. The clan-based villages and the larger moiety groups maintained complex ceremonial relationships with one another (Bean and Smith 1978b). Prior to European contact, the Serrano were hunters and gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources from the mountains, the desert, and the Mojave River, including both large and small game, as well as numerous plant resources. Large game—such as deer, mountain sheep, and pronghorn—was hunted with bow and arrow, and smaller animals such as rabbits, rodents, and reptiles were taken with throwing sticks, nets, and snares. Acorns, pinyon nuts, and mesquite beans were among the staple foods, which were seasonally supplemented by chia and rice grass seeds, roots, tubers, and various fresh greens (Bean and Smith 1978b). The presence of a perennial water source was the determining factor in the nature, duration, and distribution of Serrano villages. Most Serrano village-hamlets were in the foothill Upper Sonoran life-zone while a few were on the desert floor, near permanent water sources, or in the forest Transition zone. Small villages were more common, although there were larger villages in the Summit Valley and the Cajon Pass. Small special purpose sites, such as temporary camps, food processing stations, and lithic procurement areas, were located as needed (Bean and Smith 1978b). By 1975, most Serrano lived on two Southern California reservations (Morongo and San Manuel), where with other native Californians, they participated in ceremonial and political affairs on a pan-reservation. Only slightly over 100 people claimed Serrano descent, reduced from a pre-contact figure of approximately 1,500, and even fewer speak their native language: however, all recall with pride their history. Ethnic identity is strong, and they remain a readily identifiable cultural entity (Bean and Smith 1978b). 4.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT In 1542, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo was the first of the exploring Europeans to sail along the California coast. Although Spanish explorative incursions into California had occurred since 1542, the Late Prehistoric Period ended abruptly in 1769 with the beginning of the Spanish Mission Period. During this period of exploration, settlement, and colonization, Alta California endured immense cultural change. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1822. By 1827, Anglo–Americans were migrating into Southern California, and in the following decades the history of Southern California would continue to be shaped by the Mexican–American War, the California Gold Rush, and the Civil War. Project #20235530.001A Page 11 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 4.3.1 Spanish Mission Period (1769–1821) In 1769, Franciscan friars and Spanish soldiers began establishing mission outposts along the California coast. Gaspar de Portola led the first land expeditions in 1769, accompanied by Fray Junípero Serra, which began the establishment of the California missions and European and Mexican occupation. Native populations were heavily impacted in those areas where Spanish missions were established, from San Diego in the south to San Francisco in the north (see maps in Goodman 1962; Lowman 1993). The first European to traverse the area by land was Lt. Pedro Fages. Fages, based at the San Diego Presidio, left the presidio in 1772 on a mission to capture army deserters (Van Wormer et al. 2012). Following Native American trails, Fages revisited this region in 1782 and 1785. Many of the landmarks on what was to become the Southern Overland Road (also known as the Butterfield Line) were noted by Fages during this time (Van Wormer et al. 2012). Eventually, Fages’ explorations followed what is now called the Anza Trail (Van Wormer et al. 2012). In 1775, Juan Bautista de Anza began Spain’s first major expedition to settle the California area. Leaving the Royal Presidio of San Ignacio de Tubac in what is now southern Arizona, Anza led his company 1,200 miles through the deserts of Arizona and California, ultimately heading to San Francisco. In mid-December of 1775, de Anza’s group camped along San Felipe Creek, located between the Salton Sea and the Anza Borrego Desert State Park, to allow settlers time to recuperate from an intense winter storm. By the beginning of 1776, de Anza would bring his group to the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, near the eastern portion of modern Los Angeles. In 1810, Padre Francisco Dumetz travelled from the Mission San Gabriel to the foot of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains and named the valley “San Bernardino” after the patron Saint Bernardino of Siena. By 1819, the Spanish missionaries had established Rancho San Bernardino and began settling the San Bernardino Valley. The valley was regarded by missionaries as “The Place of Plenty,” and an ideal place to construct an outpost for Franciscan travelers (City of San Bernardino 2023). While the purpose of the missions was to convert the local Native American tribes into catholic citizens of Spain, the mission system was primarily a way for Spain to manage the indigenous populations of Alta California. In the San Bernardino County area, the arrival of the Spanish and the subsequent mission establishment was the beginning of an end of tribal life for the local indigenous population. The destruction of native culture was caused by the alteration of the landscape due to the introduction of European plants and animals and the destruction of social systems by new missions, life ways, and European diseases (Bean 1978; Lightfoot 2006). 4.3.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848) After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1822, the mission lands were secularized under the Secularization Act of 1833, although much of the land was transferred to political appointees. A series of large land grants (ranchos) that transferred mission properties to private ownership were awarded by the various governors of California. Land grants were also awarded in the interior to increase the population away from the coastal areas that were settled during the Spanish Period. The Project area, and all of present-day Fontana, was part of the Rancho San Bernardino, which encompassed approximately 35,509 Project #20235530.001A Page 12 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder acres. Land use of Alta California during this period expanded to include cattle ranches, primarily for the hide and tallow trade. Sheep and cattle ranching became the principal agricultural activities (Bean 1978). 4.3.3 Anglo–Mexican Period (1845–1860) The decline of the Mexican Rancho Period began with the onset of the Mexican–American War in 1846. Following the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt, and after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, all of Alta California became an American territory. California attained statehood as the 31st state in 1850 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). In 1851, a group of Mormon pioneers purchased 35,000 acres of the Rancho San Bernardino for $77,500 (City of San Bernardino 2023). The subsequent discovery of mineral wealth in the region led to the creation of San Bernardino County in 1853. At this time, however, Mormon pioneers in Utah were suffering religious persecution and, in the fall of 1857, President Brigham Young requested the colonists to return. Over two-thirds of the Mormon settlers abandoned their San Bernardino County lands and returned to Utah. 4.3.4 Americanization Period (1860–1916) In 1860, gold was discovered in the San Bernardino Mountains near Holcomb Valley and Bear Valley triggering the Southern California gold rush (LSA 2021). Locally, the southwestern San Bernardino County economy was shifting from mining to agriculture. Along with this shift came a struggle for water rights. In 1881, the Lytle Creek Water Company was formed to take back appropriation of the stream waters for landowner use. The results were only temporary, and by 1887 the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company had purchased all remaining previous stock within the Lytle Creek floodplain. Also in 1887, the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company platted the “Rosena” community grid, although the townsite remained undeveloped (Gudde 1998). “Rosena” (later renamed “Fontana”) is first depicted on a regional topographic maps as early as 1896 (USGS 1896). The region flourished with citrus fruit orchards, vegetable farms, and walnut orchards. Cattle, hog, and poultry farms provided beef, pork, chicken, and eggs for a rapidly expanding regional market. 4.3.5 City of Fontana In 1905, the Fontana Development Company purchased 17,000 acres of land under control of Azaerial Blanchard Miller, who later transformed the landscape into citrus fruit orchards and livestock farms (City of Fontana 2023). The new community of Rosena was situated just north of the Southern California Division of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad. By 1913, the townsite was renamed “Fontana,” which is Italian for fountain (LSA 2021). During and after World War II, the regional economy shifted from agricultural to industrial. In 1942, Fontana was selected as the location for the Kaiser Company steel mill. Over the next 10 years, the local population grew to nearly 14,000 people, many of which were employed by the mill. The City of Fontana was eventually incorporated on June 25, 1952 (City of Fontana 2023), and the community grew into Southern California’s leading producer of steel-related products. The Kaiser Company steel mill thrived into the 1970s but was ultimately closed in 1984. The mill was purchased by the California Steel Company, who continues operations to the present day (LSA 2021). Fontana’s present population is about 213,000 people, making it the second largest city in San Bernardino County, and the 19th largest city in California (City of Fontana 2023). Project #20235530.001A Page 13 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder The Project area was depicted as undeveloped land on regional topographic maps (USGS 1896, 1953,and 1967), and aerial imagery (Nationwide Environmental Title Research [NETR] 2023: 1938–2020). Project #20235530.001A Page 14 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 5 BACKGROUND RESEARCH _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH On March 21, 2023, Kleinfelder requested a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the California State University Fullerton campus. The records search included any previously conducted investigations and recorded cultural resources within the Project area and surrounding 0.25-mile (0.402-kilometer) radius to identify any site-specific information. The SCCIC also searched files regarding the California Historical Landmarks, properties eligible for listing in the NRHP, and properties eligible for listing in the CRHR (Table 1 and 2). The results of the records search indicated that one cultural resource study intersected with the Project area (SB-07401) but no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the Project area. Two historic-period bult environment resources (P-36-015286 and P-36-029538) were identified within the 0.25-mile search radius and no previously recorded pre-historic resources were identified within the 0.25-mile search radius. TABLE 1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Studies within 0.25-mile of the Project Area Report No. Date Author Title Relation to the Project Site SB-07401 2013 Tang, Bai "Tom", Deirdre Encarnacion, Terri Jacquemain, and Daniel Ballester Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood Control Project, in and near the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Intersects the Project area SB- 03591 1995 Owen, Shelley Marie Cultural Resource Record Search and Management Plan for the San Sevaine Redevelopment Project Area, San Bernardino County, CA. 63PP Within 0.25 mile of the Project. SB- 03601 1998 Brechbiel, Brant Cultural Resource Record Search and Literature Review for a PBMS Telecommunications Facility: CM 194-01, City of Fontana, CA. 4PP Within 0.25 mile of the Project. SB- 07048 2012 Padon, Beth Cultural Resource Assessment Study for Verizon "Hemlock" Site in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Within 0.25 mile of the Project. SB-07084 2010 Tang, Bai “Tom” Preliminary Historical/Archaeological Resources Study, San Bernardino Line Positive Train Control Project, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. Within 0.25 mile of the Project. SB- 07922 2016 McKenna, Jeanette A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed West Fontana Flood Control Channel, Fontana, San Bernardino Co., California Within 0.25 mile of the Project. Project #20235530.001A Page 15 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder TABLE 2: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25-mile of the Project Area Primary No. Trinomial Type Description Relation to the Project Site P-36-015286 N/A Historic Site Historic Building Within 0.25 mile of the Project. P-36-029538 N/A Historic Site Water Conveyance System Within 0.25 mile of the Project. 5.2 SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH On March 21, 2023, Kleinfelder sent a request to the NAHC for a SLF search and a Native American contact list for the project. The NAHC responded on April 18, 2023, via email, indicating that the area was negative for sacred lands. The NAHC provided a list of Native American contacts to reach out to for more information regarding the Project area. A copy of the NAHC response is included in Appendix C. 5.2.1 Tribal Consultation The SLF results and the Tribal contacts were provided to the City of Fontana, who, as lead agency, has initiated the consultation process under Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52. 5.3 HISTORIC MAP REVIEW Kleinfelder reviewed historical maps depicting features such as towns, roads, buildings, and waterways to provide additional information regarding the potential for the presence of historic-era cultural resources within the Project area. Historic maps are available at several online repositories, including the USGS, Library of Congress Geography and Map Division – Sanborn Map Company (Sanborn), and the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – General Land Office (GLO) Records. Aerial imagery was reviewed online at the NETR. In addition, a serial land patent was issued to Sarah C. Brandon in 1869, for 964 acres that included the east half of Section 12 in Township 1 South, Range 6 West (BLM GLO 2023). The following sources were consulted during the historical map review: • San Bernardino, Calif. 1:62,500 (USGS 1896) • Fontana, Calif. 1:31,680 (USGS 1943 [Historical Topographic Map Collection, 1943 ed.]) • Fontana, Calif. 1:24,000 (USGS 1953 [Historical Topographic Map Collection, 1963 ed.]) • Fontana, Calif. 1:24,000 (USGS 1967 [Historical Topographic Map Collection, 1969 ed.]) • Sanborn Fire Insurance map from Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1926) • NETR 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 • Township 1 South, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Principal Meridian (BLM GLO 1856, 1884) Project #20235530.001A Page 16 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 5.3.1 Historical Map Review Results The following summarizes the results of the historic map review of the Project area: • The 1856 GLO Plat for Township 1 South, Range 6 West depicts the Project area as undeveloped “Public land.” The “San Bernardino Road” extends east to west through Sections 1–6, about 0.8 mile north of the Project area. The “Old San Bernardino Road” extends east to west through Sections 25, 27–30, and 34–36, about 3.8 miles south of the Project area. No buildings, structures, or other locations of previous historic activities were noted within a one-mile radius of the Project area (BLM GLO 1856). • The 1884 GLO Plat for Township 1 South, Range 6 West depicts the Project area as undeveloped “Public land.” The “Etiwanda and Riverside Road” and “Etiwanda and Cucamonga Road” intersect in Section 8, about 3.85 miles west of the Project area. No buildings, structures, or other locations of previous historic activities were noted within a one-mile radius of the Project area (BLM GLO 1884). • The 1896 quadrangle depicts multiple unnamed light duty roads within a one-mile radius of the Project area. The “Southern California Division of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad” is 0.25 mile south of the Project area. The early “Rosena” grid and about 10 buildings are depicted along the railroad alignment, about 0.8 miles east-southeast from the Project area (USGS 1896). • The 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map depicts downtown Fontana, historic builidings, and several farms but does not include lands within the Project area (Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1926). • The 1938 aerial imagery shows the Project area as undeveloped land (NETR 2023). • The 1943 quadrangle depicts one building in the Project area. “Arrow Boulevard” and “Citrus Avenue” are named roads. The “Pacific Electric Railroad” is 0.2 mile north of the Project area; the “Grape Spur” of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad bisects Section 12, 0.25 mile west; and the mainline of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad is still 0.25 mile south. Development within a one-mile radius of the Project area is more pronounced. About 50 buildings are visible within Section 12, most of which are along the railroads. Building density increases to the east towards downtown Fontana (USGS 1943). • The 1948 aerial imagery shows one building in the center the Project area, surrounded by agricultural land (NETR 2023). • The 1953 quadrangle depicts about four buildings in the Project area, which is bound by a highway named the “Arrow Route.” An unnamed gravel pit is 0.2 mile southwest. Additional buildings are depicted 300 feet east-northeast of the Project area (USGS 1953). • The 1966 aerial imagery shows the building in the Project area center was removed (NETR 2023). • The 1967 quadrangle still depicts one buliding in the Project area, and the land remains undeveloped. The Fontana Gravel Pit is depicted within the Southern Project Area. Building density increases to the west, south, and east of Section 12 (USGS 1967). • The 1985 aerial imagery shows the land in the Northern Project Area as undeveloped, with a duty road intersecting the eastern half from north to south. The Fontana Gravel Pit is visible in the Southern Project Area (NETR 2023). Project #20235530.001A Page 17 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder • Between 1985 and 2020, aerial imagery shows no visible changes to the Project area, and no additional historic-era buildings or structures were identified within the vicinity (NETR 2023). Project #20235530.001A Page 18 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 6 FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS _____________________________________________________________________________________________ On May 9, 2023, Kleinfelder archaeologist David Sosa, M.A., conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the 7-acre Project area using walking transects at 15-meter (approximately 49 feet) intervals from east to west. The Project area was surveyed with the use of ArcGIS Collector global positioning system map to ensure that the distance between each transect was consistent within the Project boundary and for the mapping and documentation of any possible new cultural resources sites or isolates that could be discovered during the survey. Because the survey resulted in negative findings, site identification and recordation field methods are not included in this section of the report. 6.1 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS On May 9, 2023, Kleinfelder Archaeologist David Sosa, M.A., conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Northern Project Area. The Northern Project area shows evidence of mechanical disturbance and had a built-up berm that outlines the parcel on the north along Arrow Boulevard and east along Tokay Avenue boundary of the parcel. Modern trash dumps appear along the berm that consists of glass bottles, metal cans, construction debris, and other miscellaneous dumping items. Overall, the area is flat, but the ground surface is uneven due to possible furrowing of the surface that runs east to west. Additionally, random built-up berms appear through the middle of the parcel. Soil present in the project area was a pale yellowish-grey sandy loam with subrounded to rounded gravel and cobble inclusions. Vegetation in the area was knee-high to chest-high bushes and shrubs that consisted of cheat grass, fox tail, and thorny bush. Trees in the area were eucalyptus trees. Ground visibility was 0 to 5 percent due to dense vegetation. Vegetation grew denser toward the middle of the area. As a result of the density of vegetation, roughly 30 percent of the Northern Project Area was accessible. No cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey. The Southern Project Area was inaccessible for survey due to the property being fenced off. What was notable from outside the fence was the property being a large dug-out gravel pit. The pit appeared excavated to approximately 100 feet from surface level and had mechanically sloped walls. At the base of the pit was a concrete foundation. Vegetation in the area is similar to what is present in the Northern Project Area without trees being present and the addition of large bushes. Along the eastern edge of the area, along Tokay Avenue, there was roadside trash dumping present. Survey photographs are included in Appendix D. Project #20235530.001A Page 19 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 7 SENSITIVITY OF BURIED RESOURCES _____________________________________________________________________________________________ A desktop analysis of the Project area (both Northern Project Area and Southern Project Area) was conducted to assess the potential for buried archaeological deposits. Kleinfelder has reviewed the Project area for cultural resource sensitivity levels rated low, moderate, or high based on the results of the archival research, records search results, regional environmental factors, and historic and modern development. 7.1 SENSITIVITY FOR BURIED PREHISTORIC RESOURCES The Project area is located on a level area, located approximately 2.24 miles southeast of the Etiwanda Creek. The distance from a natural water source decreases the likelihood of prehistoric habitation in the vicinity. The results of the CHRIS records search indicate there were no previously recorded prehistoric cultural resources previously identified within the Project area. One previously conducted cultural resources study that intersected with the Project area resulted in negative findings for prehistoric cultural resources. Five previously conducted studies resulted in negative findings for prehistoric resources within a 0.25-mile radius of the Project area. The consistent negative results from the previously conducted studies suggest a lowered likelihood for the presence of subsurface prehistoric resources. Further, the NAHC identified no Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project area or the search radius. The negative results from the field survey further reduce the likelihood for subsurface prehistoric materials. As such, Kleinfelder considers the Project area to have a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric resources. 7.2 SENSITIVITY FOR BURIED HISTORIC PERIOD RESOURCES The results of the CHRIS records search indicate there were no previously recorded historic-period cultural resources previously identified within the Project area. One previously conducted cultural resources study that intersected with the Project area resulted in negative findings for historic-period cultural resources. Two historic-period built environment resources were identified within the 0.25-mile radius of the Project area, but the five previously conducted cultural resources studies resulted in negative findings for historic- period archaeological resources. Based on a review of historic maps and aerials, the only historical activity of note within the Project area was the agricultural use noted on historic topographic maps (NETR 2023: 1948). The lack of evidence for historic-period habitation and the use of the property for agriculture, which results in significant ground disturbance, lessen the potential for historic-period cultural resources. As such, Kleinfelder considers the Project area to have a low sensitivity for buried historic-era resources. Project #20235530.001A Page 20 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS _____________________________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the Project area and to assist the City of Fontana in identifying and determining if such resources are listed or eligible for the CRHR. The study included a review of the natural and cultural environment including the prehistory, ethnography, and history; a review of historic maps; record search results from the SCCIC; NAHC SLF search; and a pedestrian survey. As a result of these efforts, the study determined there are no previous or newly identified cultural resources in the Northern Project Area. These results, compounded with the high amount of disturbance due to past use as agricultural land, have reduced the potential for subsurface cultural materials within the Northern Project Area. Kleinfelder considers the Northern Project Area to have a low sensitivity for buried cultural resources. Despite the reduced cultural resources sensitivity in the Northern Project Area, there is some potential to encounter subsurface cultural materials. The following mitigation measures (MM) are required: • MM-1: In the event archaeological resources are encountered during any ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project, then all ground-disturbing work at the location, plus within a reasonable buffer zone, must be immediately suspended. The approving City department shall be contacted, and a qualified professional archaeologist retained to analyze the significance of the find and formulate further mitigation (e.g., Project relocation, excavation plan, and protective cover) in consultation with culturally affiliated tribes or other descendant groups, where applicable. • MM-2: Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, if known or suspected Native American or other human remains are encountered, all ground-disturbing work must cease in the vicinity of the discovery, and the County Coroner contacted. The respectful treatment and disposition of remains and associated grave offerings shall be in accordance with PRC §5097.98. The applicant and successors in interest are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with this condition. • MM-3: In the event the Project design changes, and ground disturbance is anticipated beyond the Project area as it is currently defined, further surveys shall be conducted in those new areas to assess the presence of cultural resources. Any newly discovered or previously recorded cultural resources within the additional survey areas shall be recorded (or updated) on appropriate DPR 523-series forms. If eligible historic properties/historical resources are identified and avoidance of these resources is not feasible, then an evaluation and/or data recovery program shall be drafted and implemented. The Southern Project Area was inaccessible for the purposes of this study. The desktop assessment suggests that the likelihood for subsurface prehistoric and historic resources is low; however, a cultural resources survey of the Southern Project Area will be required prior to issuance of any ground- disturbance-related permits or other construction-related activities within the Southern Project Area. Project #20235530.001A Page 21 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 9 PREPARERES’ QUALIFICATIONS _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Kleinfelder Archaeologists David Sosa and Ryan Nordstrom contributed to this report. Mr. Sosa has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social and Behavioral Sciences from California State University, Monterey Bay, and a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology from the California State University, Los Angeles. He is a registered professional archaeologist (RPA) (#17557) and a member of the Society for California Archaeology and Society for American Archaeology. He meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology. Mr. Sosa has nine years of experience in cultural resources management, including project management, personnel management, field survey, excavation and data recovery, laboratory analysis, collections management, and geographic information system applications in environmental planning. He has experience in preparation of archaeological research; and archaeological evaluations for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR; and survey, testing, excavation, and monitoring reports pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mr. Nordstrom has over a decade of experience in cultural resource management and has contributed to over 100 projects from independent pedestrian surveys to large-scale data recovery excavations. He has authored, co-authored, or contributed to over 30 agency reports in California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah and has acquired a broad range of compliance experience in both the public and private sectors. His responsibilities have included the implementation of Section 106 of the NHPA, NEPA, and CEQA compliance requirements including Class I, II, and III data collection and management; interagency management collaboration; agency and tribal coordination; drafting all sections and phases of technical reports and report deliverables; and historic property documentation. He has led crews up to 20 people and over time served as a field lead, staff archaeologist, crew lead, monitor, field technician, laboratory technician, and volunteer on a wide variety of projects. Project #20235530.001A Page 22 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder 10 REFERENCES _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 555–587. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith 1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp.538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp.538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. City of San Bernardino 2023 History of San Bernardino (Short Version). Online, https://www.sbcity.org/about/ history/history_of_san_bernardino_short_version, accessed April 2023. City of Fontana 2023 About the City of Fontana. Online, https://www.fontana.org/31/About-Us, accessed April 2023. Duke, Curt 2010 Cultural Resources Assessment: Arantine Hills Specific Plan, City of Corona, Riverside County, California. LSA Associates, Inc. Erlandson, Jon M. 1994 Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology: Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Gabrielino-Tongva Indian Tribe 2023 Historical Landmarks: Tongva Memorial. Online, https://gabrielinotribe.org/historical- landmarks/, accessed April 2023. Goodman, Marian 1962 Missions of California. Redwood City Tribune. Granger, Gena and Bodmer, Clarence 2014 Final Report: A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Whitewood Road Extension Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Chambers Group, Inc. Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley. Project #20235530.001A Page 23 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Lightfoot, Kent 2006 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: Encounters on the California Frontier. University of California Press Morton, D.M., and Kelly R. Bovard 2003 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. USGS Open-File Report (OFR) 03-418 Scale: 1:24,000. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) 2021 Cultural Resources Assessment – Frontier Enterprises: Mango – South Highland Townhomes, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for FH II Homebuilders, Inc. Lowman, Hubert A. 1993 The Old Spanish Missions of California. Third printing. Edited by Martha H. Lowman. Lawson Mardon Group Publishers. McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning and Novato: Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press. Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press. Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) 2023 “Historic Aerials: 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020” accessed at https://historicaerials.com/ in April 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2023 Web Soil Survey. Digital document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/ HomePage.htm, accessed April 2023. Sanborn Map Company (Sanborn) 1926 “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Fontana, San Bernardino County, California” Sanborn Map Company: New York; June 1926, Images 1-5. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn00547_001/, accessed April 2023. United States Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), General Land Office (GLO) Records. 1856 GLO Plat T1S R6W, web accessed April 2023. 1884 GLO Plat T1S R6W, web accessed April 2023. 2023 Patent Details https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=CACAA A%20084348&docClass=SER&sid=eafrmzzm.d4o, accessed April 2023. Project #20235530.001A Page 24 of 24 May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1896 San Bernardino, California. 1:62,500 scale. 1943 Fontana, California. 1:31,680 scale. Historical Topographic Map Collection, 1943 ed. 1953 Fontana, California. 1: 24,000 scale. Historical Topographic Map Collection, 1963 ed. 1967 Fontana, California. 1: 24,000 scale. Historical Topographic Map Collection, 1969 ed. Van Wormer, Stephen R., Sue Wade, Susan D. Walter, and Susan Arter 2012 An Isolated Frontier Outpost: Historic and Archaeological Investigations of the Carrizo Creek Stage State. Publications in Cultural Heritage 29. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Archaeology, History and Museums Division. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 215–230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 25-36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, Contributions in Anthropology, 1 (3) p. 1-14. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2023 Fontan Kaiser, California (043120), Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Online, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3120, accessed April 2023. Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder APPENDIX A Project Maps _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ProjectLocation ^_ ± 0 2.5 5Kilometers Figure 1: Regional VicinityTechnical Studies in Support of the Homelessness PreventionResources and Care Center Project San Bernardino County, California01.5 3Miles Created By: dlmoore Document Path: G:\Other_Cult\20235530001A_TechnicalStudies_HomelessPrevention_CareCenter\BIO_TechnicalStudies_HomelessPrevention_CareCenter_Regional_Vicinity.mxd Scale 1:190,080 Source: Bing Maps 1 in = 3 miles ^_ Project Location§¨¦15 §¨¦215 §¨¦10 SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY RIVERSIDECOUNTY §¨¦210 §¨¦605 §¨¦5 Æÿ91 Æÿ60 Æÿ2LOS ANGELESCOUNTY Æÿ39 Æÿ241 Project Location ProjectLocation ^_ ± 0 300 600Meters Figure 2: Project Location Technical Studies in Support ofthe Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center ProjectSan Bernardino County, California01,000 2,000Feet Created By: JHiatt Document Path: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\GANDA\Other_Cult\TechnicalStudies_HomelessPrevention_CareCenter\CULT_TechnicalStudies_HomelessPrevention_CareCenter_Project_Location.mxd Scale 1:24,000 USGS 7.5' Quad: FONTANA (1980)Legal Description: T01S, R06W, SEC 12 1 in = 2,000 feet Project Location ProjectLocation ^_ ± 0 75 150Meters Figure 3: Project AreaTechnical Studies in Support of the Homelessness PreventionResources and Care Center Project San Bernardino County, California0250500Feet Created By: dlmoore Document Path: G:\Other_Cult\20235530001A_TechnicalStudies_HomelessPrevention_CareCenter\Figure3_TechnicalStudies_HomelessPrevention_CareCenter_ProjectArea.mxd Scale 1:6,000 Source: Bing Maps 1 in = 500 feet Northern Project Area Southern Project Area Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder APPENDIX B South Central Coastal Information Center Record Search Result (CONFIDENTIAL) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ South Central Coastal Information Center California State University, Fullerton Department of Anthropology MH-426 800 North State College Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92834-6846 657.278.5395 / FAX 657.278.5542 sccic@fullerton.edu California Historical Resources Information System Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties _____________________________________________________________________________ 4/27/2023 Records Search File No.: 24681.10851 David Sosa Kleinfelder 201 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200 Glendale, CA 91203 Re: Record Search Results for 20235530.001A Homelessness Prevention Resources/Care Center The South Central Coastal Information Center received your records search request for the project area(s) referenced above, located on the Fontana, CA USGS 7.5’ quadrangle(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a ¼-mile radius: As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ shape files ☐ hand-drawn maps Resources within project area: 0 None Resources within ¼-mile radius: 2 SEE ATTACHED MAP or LIST Reports within project area: 1 SB-07401 Reports within ¼-mile radius: 5 SEE ATTACHED MAP or LIST Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database (spreadsheet): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database (spreadsheet): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) 2022: ☒ available online; please go to https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 Archaeo Determinations of Eligibility 2022: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed San Bernardino Historical Maps: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/39.98/-100.02 Ethnographic Information: ☒ not available at SCCIC Historical Literature: ☒ not available at SCCIC GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☒ not available at SCCIC Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: (see below) ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above. The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice. Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System, Isabela Kott Assistant Coordinator, GIS Program Specialist Enclosures: (X) Custom Maps – 3 pages (X) Resource Database Printout (list) – 1 page (X) Resource Database Printout (details) – 2 pages (X) Resource Digital Database (spreadsheet) – 2 lines (X) Report Database Printout (list) – 1 page (X) Report Database Printout (details) – 6 pages (X) Report Digital Database (spreadsheet) – 6 lines (X) Report Copies – (project area only) 44 pages Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SB-03591 1995 CULTURAL RESOURCE RECORD SEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAN SEVAINE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 63PP EIP ASSOCIATESOWEN, SHELLEY MARIE 36-004131, 36-006847, 36-007099NADB-R - 1063591 SB-03601 1998 CULTURAL RESOURCE RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW FOR A PBMS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY: CM 194-01, CITY OF FONTANA, CA. 4PP CHAMBERS GROUP, INCBRECHBIEL, BRANTNADB-R - 1063601 SB-07048 2012 Cultural Resource Assessment Study for Verizon "Hemlock" Site in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Discovery WorksPadon, Beth 36-016454 SB-07084 2010 Preliminary Historical/Archaeological Resources Study, San Bernardino Line Positive Train Control Project, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. CRM TECHTang, Bai “Tom”NADB-R - 1067084 SB-07401 2013 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood Control Project, in and near the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. CRM TechTang, Bai "Tom", Deirdre Encarnacion, Terri Jacquemain, and Daniel Ballester NADB-R - 1067401 SB-07922 2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed West Fontana Flood Control Channel, Fontana, San Bernardino Co., California McKenna et al.McKenna, Jeanette 36-029538 Page 1 of 1 SBAIC 4/26/2023 5:18:42 PM Primary No.Trinomial Resource List Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by P-36-015286 Resource Name - 16187 Arrow Blvd, Fontana; OHP Property Number - 102629 Structure Historic AH01 1996 (HRI) P-36-029538 Resource Name - West Fontana Flood Control Channel SB-07922StructureHistoricHP202016 (Jeanette McKenna, McKenna et al.) Page 1 of 1 SBAIC 4/26/2023 3:59:16 PM Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder APPENDIX C Sacred Lands File Search Results _____________________________________________________________________________________________ STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 1 April 18, 2023 David Sosa Kleinfelder Via Email to: dsosa@kleinfelder.com Re: 20235530.001A Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, San Bernardino County Dear Mr. Sosa: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Cameron.vela@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Cameron Vela Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki COMMISSIONER Wayne Nelson Luiseño COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay COMMISSIONER [Vacant] COMMISSIONER [Vacant] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock Miwok/Nisenan NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reid Milanovich, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6800 Fax: (760) 699-6919 laviles@aguacaliente.net Cahuilla Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6907 Fax: (760) 699-6924 ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net Cahuilla Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Amanda Vance, Chairperson 84-001 Avenue 54 Coachella, CA, 92236 Phone: (760) 398 - 4722 Fax: (760) 369-7161 hhaines@augustinetribe.com Cahuilla Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Doug Welmas, Chairperson 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Indio, CA, 92203 Phone: (760) 342 - 2593 Fax: (760) 347-7880 jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov Cahuilla Cahuilla Band of Indians Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 U.S. Highway 371 Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 763 - 5549 Fax: (951) 763-2808 Chairman@cahuilla.net Cahuilla Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA, 91723 Phone: (844) 390 - 0787 admin@gabrielenoindians.org Gabrieleno Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA, 91778 Phone: (626) 483 - 3564 Fax: (626) 286-1262 GTTribalcouncil@aol.com Gabrieleno Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231 Los Angeles, CA, 90012 Phone: (951) 807 - 0479 sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com Gabrielino Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA, 90707 Phone: (562) 761 - 6417 Fax: (562) 761-6417 gtongva@gmail.com Gabrielino Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Christina Conley, Cultural Resource Administrator P.O. Box 941078 Simi Valley, CA, 93094 Phone: (626) 407 - 8761 christina.marsden@alumni.usc.ed u Gabrielino Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Charles Alvarez, 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA, 91307 Phone: (310) 403 - 6048 roadkingcharles@aol.com Gabrielino Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson P.O. Box 189 Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189 Phone: (760) 782 - 0711 Fax: (760) 782-0712 Cahuilla 1 of 3 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 20235530.001A Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, San Bernardino County. PROJ-2023- 001991 04/18/2023 10:49 AM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Bernardino County 4/18/2023 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220 Phone: (951) 755 - 5110 Fax: (951) 755-5177 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla Serrano Morongo Band of Mission Indians Ann Brierty, THPO 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA, 92220 Phone: (951) 755 - 5259 Fax: (951) 572-6004 abrierty@morongo-nsn.gov Cahuilla Serrano Pala Band of Mission Indians Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA, 92059 Phone: (760) 891 - 3537 awallick@palatribe.com Cupeno Luiseno Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA, 92059 Phone: (760) 891 - 3515 Fax: (760) 742-3189 sgaughen@palatribe.com Cupeno Luiseno Pechanga Band of Indians Mark Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA, 92593 Phone: (951) 770 - 6000 Fax: (951) 695-1778 epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov Luiseno Pechanga Band of Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA, 92593 Phone: (951) 770 - 6306 Fax: (951) 506-9491 pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov Luiseno Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (928) 750 - 2516 scottmanfred@yahoo.com Quechan Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (760) 572 - 2423 historicpreservation@quechantrib e.com Quechan Ramona Band of Cahuilla John Gomez, Environmental Coordinator P. O. Box 391670 Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 763 - 4105 Fax: (951) 763-4325 jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov Cahuilla Ramona Band of Cahuilla Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson P.O. Box 391670 Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 763 - 4105 Fax: (951) 763-4325 admin@ramona-nsn.gov Cahuilla 2 of 3 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 20235530.001A Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, San Bernardino County. PROJ-2023- 001991 04/18/2023 10:49 AM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Bernardino County 4/18/2023 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA, 92082 Phone: (760) 749 - 1051 Fax: (760) 749-5144 bomazzetti@aol.com Luiseno Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA, 92082 Phone: (760) 297 - 2635 crd@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Alexandra McCleary, Cultural Lands Manager 26569 Community Center Drive Highland, CA, 92346 Phone: (909) 633 - 0054 alexandra.mccleary@sanmanuel- nsn.gov Serrano Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 659 - 2700 Fax: (951) 659-2228 lsaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Cahuilla Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson P. O. Box 343 Patton, CA, 92369 Phone: (909) 528 - 9032 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson P. O. Box 343 Patton, CA, 92369 Phone: (253) 370 - 0167 serranonation1@gmail.com Serrano Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson P. O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Phone: (951) 654 - 5544 Fax: (951) 654-4198 ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Cultural Committee, P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA, 92274 Phone: (760) 397 - 0300 Fax: (760) 397-8146 Cultural- Committee@torresmartinez- nsn.gov Cahuilla 3 of 3 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 20235530.001A Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, San Bernardino County. PROJ-2023- 001991 04/18/2023 10:49 AM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Bernardino County 4/18/2023 Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder APPENDIX D Survey Photographs _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Northern Project Area Overview from Northeast Corner, facing West. Northern Project Area Overview from Northeast Corner, facing Southwest. Northern Project Area Overview from Northeast Corner, facing South. Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Northern Project Area Overview from Northwest Corner, facing East. Northern Project Area Overview from Northwest Corner, facing Southeast. Northern Project Area Overview from Northwest Corner, facing South. Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Northern Project Area Overview from Southeast Corner, facing North. Northern Project Area Overview from Southeast Corner, facing Northwest. Northern Project Area Overview from Southeast Corner, facing West. Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Southern Project Area Overview from Northwest Corner, facing South. Southern Project Area Overview from Middle of Northern Boundary, facing South. Southern Project Area Overview from Northeast Corner, facing South. Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Southern Project Area Overview from Northeast Corner with Fencing, facing South. Southern Project Area Overview from Southeast Corner with Fencing, facing North. Southern Project Area Overview from Southeast Corner with Fencing, facing Northwest. Project #/20235530.001A May 2023 © 2023 Kleinfelder Southern Project Area Overview from Southeast Corner with Fencing, facing West.