HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D - Archaeological Report
Appendix D
Archaeological Report
November 18, 2022 14386.05
Subject: Draft Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project, City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr. Jared Sammet:
This letter documents the archaeological resources assessment conducted by Dudek for the Jefferson Fontana
Apartment Project (Project or proposed Project), located within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
The present study documents the results of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records
search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), an archaeological pedestrian survey,
an analysis regarding the potential for archaeological resources to be present, as well as management
recommendations. The City of Fontana (City) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Project Location
The proposed Project site is located within the central portion of the City of Fontana, in southwestern San Bernardino
County, California and is located within public land survey system (PLSS) Section 19 of Township 1 South, Range 5
West on the Fontana, California 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle (Appendix A: Figure 1). Specifically, the irregularly-
shaped approximately 11.6-acre proposed Project site is composed of thirteen (13) parcels (Assessor Parcel
Numbers [APNs] 0251-171-19, 0251-321-17, 0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, 0251-321-21, 0251-
321-22, 0251-321-23, 0251-321-24, 0251-321-25, 0251-321-26, 0251-321-27, and 0251-321-35) and
includes addresses 16605, 16617, 16627, 16637, and 16655 Valley Boulevard and 10120, 10172, 10182, and
10196 Juniper Avenue. The proposed Project site is generally bound by Cypress Avenue to the west, Valley
Boulevard to the north, Washington Drive and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the south, and Juniper Avenue to the east
(Appendix A: Figure 2).
Project Description
The proposed Project involves the construction of a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail
space, 14,150 square feet of leasing and amenity space, and associated improvements. The proposed Project
would consist of eight, 4-story residential buildings that contain one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The proposed
Project would provide 126 one-bedroom units, 271 two-bedroom units, and 40 three-bedroom units. The proposed
Project is divided down the center, providing an eastern and western portion of the site. Each portion of the site
Jared Sammet
Development Associate
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego , California 90094
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 2 NOVEMBER 2022
would have a main entry access point, provided with sliding vehicle entrance gates. The Project’s proposed 2,000
square feet of retail space would be in the northeastern corner of the site. Additionally, the proposed Project would
include associated recreation and leasing buildings, pool areas, fire pits, lounge areas, a dog park, and other
miscellaneous amenities divided between the eastern and western portions of the site. The areas not developed
with the residential buildings, parking lots, and retail space would be landscaped, resulting in a total of 63,695
square feet of landscaped area on the proposed Project site.
Site Access and Parking
The proposed Project site would be accessible via three entries. The primary access to the eastern portion of the
site would be a driveway located along Juniper Avenue, with two sliding vehicle gates providing access to residential
parking stalls. The primary access to the western portion of the site would be a driveway off of the western proposed
Project boundary, through an existing parking lot located off of Valley Boulevard. The western access would also
have two sliding vehicle gates providing access to residential parking stalls. The proposed Project site would also
have a third access point at the south of the site along Washington Drive.
Overall, parking would consist of 648 dedicated residential stalls and 15 dedicated retail stalls, for a total of 663
parking stalls. Residential parking would consist of 404 open standard stalls, 122 open tandem stalls, and 122
garage stalls.
On-Site and Off-Site Adjacent Improvements
The proposed Project would also include improvements to Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue along the Project’s
street frontages, including a landscape setback, a new sidewalk, and half-width frontage improvements within the
roadway right-of-way. Consistent with City standards, all existing overhead utility service lines adjoining and interior
to the proposed Project site would be undergrounded, and new City streetlights would be installed within the
dedicated right-of-way. A variety of trees, shrubs, plants, and land covers would be planted in the landscape areas
throughout the proposed Project site.
Utility and Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed Project site has access to existing domestic water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and dry utility
infrastructure facilities located adjacent to the site.
Current Project design indicates that the maximum depths of ground disturbance across the proposed Project is 5
feet below the existing ground surface and up to 6 feet below existing ground surface for underground utilities.
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project site is within California’s Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, which is defined by an
east-west trending series of steep mountain ranges and valleys (California Geological Survey 2002). The transverse
ranges include the Santa Ana Mountains to the southwest, the San Jacinto Mountains to the southeast, and the
San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The proposed Project site is approximately 7 miles south
of the San Bernardino, approximately 10.8 miles southwest of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 18.7 miles
northeast of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Jurupa Hills are located approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 3 NOVEMBER 2022
Project site. The proposed Project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial fan deposits originating from the Lytle
Creek fan. More specifically, the proposed Project site is situated on an alluvial plain flowing southward from the
confluence of Lytle Creek Wash and the Cajon Wash. In addition, the proposed Project site is over 5 miles northwest
of the Santa Ana River channel, over 14 miles north of Lake Matthews and approximately 20 miles northwest of
Lake Perris. The natural vegetation within the Project vicinity prior to European colonization would have consisted
of various native plants like sand verbena, yarrow, and deerweed, as well as manzanita, and other perennial grasses
and herbs (Calflora, 2022).
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil
Survey (USDA 2022a), soils within the proposed Project site consists of Tujunga loamy sand with 0 to 5 percent
slopes. This soils series is described below according the official soil description (USDA 2022b):
Tujunga Series: Characterized as very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from
granitic sources. This soils series is found on alluvial fans and floodplains, including urban areas and consists of
slopes ranging from 0 to 12 percent. A typical Tujunga series pedon extends approximately 6.5 feet below ground
surface (bgs).
Presently, the proposed Project is vacant and is generally undeveloped with no existing buildings or structures;
however, at the southeast quadrant of the proposed Project site, within APNs 025-132-125 and 025-132-126, is
a roughly 4,000 square foot concrete pad that is currently used for vehicular parking. The proposed Project site is
relatively flat with elevation ranging from 1,100 to 1,120 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Surrounding land uses
include residential, commercial, and light industrial uses to the north, west, and east of the proposed Project site.
Regulatory Context
Work for this Project was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The regulatory
framework as it pertains to cultural resources under CEQA is detailed below.
Under the provisions of CEQA, including the CEQA Statutes (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1), the CEQA Guidelines
(14 CCR 15064.5), and California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 (14 CCR 4850 et seq.), properties
expected to be directly or indirectly affected by a proposed project must be evaluated for California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) eligibility (PRC Section 5024.1).
The purpose of the CRHR is to maintain listings of the state’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to
be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from material impairment and substantial adverse change. The term
historical resources include a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR; a resource included
in a local register of historical resources; and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that
a lead agency determines to be historically significant (14 CCR 15064.5[a]). The criteria for listing properties in the CRHR
were developed in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. The California Office of Historic Preservation regards “any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years
old” as meriting recordation and evaluation (OHP 1995:2).
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 4 NOVEMBER 2022
State
The California Register of Historical Resources
A cultural resource is considered “historically significant” under CEQA if the resource meets one or more of the
criteria for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR was designed to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and
citizens to identify existing cultural resources within the state and to indicate which of those resources should be
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The following criteria have been
established for the CRHR. A resource is considered significant if it:
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.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain
enough of their historic character or appearance to be able to convey the reasons for their significance. Such integrity is
evaluated in regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archeological
resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that
section. A unique archaeological resource is defined as follows:
• An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely
adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
o Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information
o Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example
of its type
o Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person
Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing in the CRHR nor qualify as a “unique archaeological
resource” under CEQA (PRC Section 21083.2) are viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A non-unique
archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by
the lead agency if it so elects” (PRC Section 21083.2[h]).
Impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a
significant effect on the environment. Impacts to historical resources from a proposed project are thus considered
significant if the project (1) physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource; (2) changes the character of the
use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource, which contributes to its significance; or (3)
introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 5 NOVEMBER 2022
California Environmental Quality Act
As described further, the following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000
et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
▪ PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.”
▪ PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines “historical resources.” In addition,
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of
an historical resource;” it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the
significance of a historical resource.
▪ PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.”
▪ PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed
following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.
▪ PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information
regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of
preservation-in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating
impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the
archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups
associated with the archaeological site(s).
More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(b)). If a site is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a local register of historic
resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section
5024.1(q)), it is an “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of
CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from
determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section
21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)).
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under
CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(b)(1); PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially
impaired when a project does any of the following:
(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in
the California Register; or
(2) 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 an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC,
unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence
that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 6 NOVEMBER 2022
(3) 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 California Register as
determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)).
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical
resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency
may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in
an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC
Sections 21083.2(a)–(c)).
Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about
which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high
probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC
Section 21083.2(g)).
Impacts on nonunique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC
Section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a nonunique archaeological resource
qualifies as a TCR (PRC Sections 21074(c) and 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be
used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in PRC
Section 5097.98.
California State Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1,
21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that tribal cultural resources (TCRs)
must be considered under CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for
the lead agency. Section 21074 describes a TCR as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object
that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and that is either:
▪ On or determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register; or
▪ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.
AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with
California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, including tribes
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 7 NOVEMBER 2022
that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.
Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a
significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds
Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid
significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation
regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the
consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are
adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their
antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery,
no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains
shall occur until the county coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5(b)). PRC Section 5097.98 also
outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has
reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC within 24 hours
(Section 7050.5(c)). NAHC will notify the “most likely descendant.” With the permission of the landowner, the most
likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of
notification of the most likely descendant by NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating
or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and items associated with Native Americans.
Local
City of Fontana Historic Resource Code (ARTICLE XIII.)
Sec. 5-351. - Purpose.
This article is adopted to implement the goals and policies of the general plan, which recognize the presence of
archeological sites and buildings that have historic importance for the city. The city council finds and declares that
historic, archeological and cultural resources symbolize the city and its people, reveal how the city's character was
shaped, and instill pride in the community. The creation and functions of the planning commission and the
identification, preservation and protection of historic, archeological and cultural resources within the city shall be
governed by the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 1001, § 1(8-68), 1-2-91; Ord. No. 1244, § 3, 5-5-98).
Sec. 5-355. - Historical Resources Designation Criteria.
The city council, upon recommendation of the commission, may designate any improvement, natural feature or site
as an historical resource and any area within the city as an historic overlay district if it meets the criteria for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places or the following:
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 8 NOVEMBER 2022
1) It has a special historical, archeological, cultural, architectural, community or aesthetic value;
2) It is identified with persons, a business use or events significant in local, state or national history;
3) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable
example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
4) It has a unique location or singular physical characteristic that represents an established and familiar
visible feature of a neighborhood or community or the city;
5) Its integrity as a natural environment or feature strongly contributes to the well-being of residents or a
neighborhood of the city; or
6) It is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of sites, buildings, structures or objects
that are unified by past events or are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development.(Ord. No. 1001,
§ 1(8-72), 1-2-91; Ord. No. 1244, § 3, 5-5-98).
Sec. 5-356. - Historical Resources Designation Procedures.
The city council may designate historical resources and historical overlay districts in the following manner:
1) Application. Any person may request the designation of an historical resource or an historic overlay district
by submitting a request for such designation at the public counter. Such request shall be forwarded to the
commission. The city council may also initiate designation proceedings on its own motion.
The historic preservation commission may also initiate designation proceedings on its own motion during
its first meeting of each calendar year. Request for designation of an historical resource or overlay district
shall contain sufficient documentation and information to indicate how the proposed historical resource
or historic overlay district meets the designation criteria set forth in this article. Notification of the request
shall, within 30 days of receipt of the request, be sent to the owners and occupants of the subject property,
using the names and addresses of such owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls.
2) Review of request. The commission shall conduct a study of the proposed designation by verifying the
accuracy of the information supplied with the request, reviewing other documentation, visiting the site, or
taking such other actions as it deems appropriate. If the commission determines that the request merits
consideration, it shall schedule a public hearing. Notice of the commission's decision to schedule or not
schedule a public hearing shall be mailed to the person making the request for designation.
3) Public hearing. If the commission decides to schedule a public hearing, notice of the date, place, time and
purpose of the hearing shall be given by first class mail to the person requesting designation and the owners
and occupants of the subject property at least ten days prior to the date of the public hearing, using the
names and addresses of such owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls. The hearing shall
also be advertised once in a newspaper of local circulation.
4) Restriction on issuance of permits. No permits for building, alteration, demolition or removal of any
improvement, building or structure of a proposed historical resource or historic overlay district shall be
issued while the public hearing or any related appeal is pending.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 9 NOVEMBER 2022
5) Commission recommendation. At the conclusion of the public hearing, but in no event more than 30 days
from the date set for the initial public hearing, the commission shall recommend, in writing, approval or
disapproval, in whole or in part, of the request for designation. The commission's recommendation shall
include findings of fact relating to the criteria for designation set forth in this article. In the case of a
proposed historical resource, the commission's recommendation shall be transmitted directly to the city
council. In the case of a proposed historic overlay district, the recommendation of the commission shall
follow the city development code zoning procedures regarding the establishment of an historic overlay
district in its recommendation to the city council. The recommendation shall also be sent to the person
requesting designation and the owners and occupants of the subject property.
6) Council decision. Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the commission, the
city council shall by ordinance approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, the request for designation. As
soon thereafter as reasonably practical, the community development department shall send by first class
mail a copy of the ordinance to the owners and occupants of the subject property, using the names and
addresses of such owners as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls.
7) Failure to notify. Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner where the address of such owner
is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed
designation.
8) Removal of designation. The commission shall not recommend that a resource or district be removed from
the local register of all properties designated as historical resources or historic overlay districts unless it is
discovered that the city council in making the original designation was erroneous or false or that
circumstances wholly beyond the owner's control have rendered the resource ineligible for designation
based on the criteria set forth in this article and that it would be feasible to restore the resource.
9) Recording. Designations must be recorded with the county recorder's office. (Ord. No. 1001, § 1(8-73), 1-
2-91; Ord. No. 1111, § 4, 5-3-94; Ord. No. 1244, § 3, 5-5-98).
Background Research
SCCIC Records Search
On June 17, 2022, Dudek conducted a search of the CHRIS at the SCCIC located at the California State University,
Fullerton. This records search included previously recorded cultural resources and investigations conducted within
a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project site as well as their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources; Department of Parks and Recreation site records; technical reports; archival
resources; and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources included historical maps of the project
site, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the
California Historic Property Data File, and the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of
Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. Dudek reviewed the SCCIC records to
determine whether the implementation of the proposed Project would have the potential to impact any known
and unknown cultural resources. The confidential records search results are provided in Confidential Appendix B.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 10 NOVEMBER 2022
Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies
Results of the cultural resources records search indicate that twenty (20) cultural resource studies have been
conducted within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project site between 1984 and 2014, none of which address the
proposed Project site. This suggests that the entirety of the proposed Project site has not been subject to any
previous archaeological investigations. Table 1, below, summarizes all twenty (20) previous studies.
Table 1. Previous Technical Studies Within a 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site
SCCIC
Report No. Authors Year Title
Proximity to
Proposed
Project Site
SB-01443 Del Chario, Kathleen C.
and Marie G. Cottrell 1984
Archaeological Resources Assessment
Conducted For The Southern Pacific
Business Park, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California
Outside
SB-02624
Alexandrowicz, J.
Stephen, Susan R.
Alexandrowicz, and
Arthur A. Kuhner
1992
A Cultural Resources Investigation For
The Proposed Construction Site of The
Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility,
9310 Sierra Avenue and The Adjacent
Western Property, City of Fontana,
County of San Bernardino, California
Outside
SB-02682
Alexandrowicz, J.
Stephen and Susan R.
Alexandrowicz
1992
Historic Archaeological and Architectural
Investigations For The Proposed Kaiser
Permanente Medical Facility, Southwest
Corner of Sierra and Randall Avenues,
City of Fontana, County of San
Bernardino, California
Outside
SB-03506 McDonald, Meg and
John Goodman 2001
Archaeological Inspection of Guzzlers
6404 & 6312, Mountaintop Ranger
District, SBNF, CA.
Outside
SB-03599 Brechbiel, Brant 1998
Cultural Resource Record Search and
Survey Report For A PBMS
Telecommunications Facility: CM 016-12
in The City of Fontana, CA.
Outside
SB-03603 Love, Bruce 1998 Installation of Water Pipes Along I-10
Between Colton and Fontana. Outside
SB-03767 Mckenna, Jeanette A. 2002
A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of
The Fontana Unified School District
Jurupa Hills Middle School Site in The
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
CA.
Outside
SB-03770 Mckenna, Jeanette A. 2002
A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation
of The Fontana Unified School District
High School #5 Site In The City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA
Outside
SB-04255 Mckenna, Jeanette A. 2004 Fontana Unified School District
Elementary School No. 30. Outside
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 11 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 1. Previous Technical Studies Within a 1-Mile of the Proposed Project Site
SCCIC
Report No. Authors Year Title
Proximity to
Proposed
Project Site
SB-04259 Romani, John 2003
Negative Archaeological Survey &
Supplemental Report: Yard 3, Arrow
Route At Locust Ave, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA.
Outside
SB-04371 Shepard, Richard 2004
Preliminary Cultural Resources
Assessment: Fontana Annexation No.
157 and Pre-Zoning, City of Fontana,
San Bernardin County.
Outside
SB-04873 Encarnacion, Deirdre 2005
Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report: San Bernardino Avenue
Pipeline and Pump Station In and Near
the City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California.
Outside
SB-05421 Yamkido, Laureen 2004 Proposed Fontana Station, San
Bernardino County Outside
SB-06099 Gregory, Carrie J. and
Holly Warner 2008
Historical Assessment and Technical
Report for the Kaiser Fontana Medical
Center Hospital Replacement Project,
Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California
Outside
SB-06516 Ashkar, Shahira 1999
Cultural Resource Inventory Report for
Williams Communications, Inc.,
Proposed Fiber Optic System Installation
Project, Los Angeles to Riverside, Los
Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties.
Outside
SB-07055 Ghabhlain, Sinead 2002 Sierra and Slover Cultural Resources
Survey Outside
SB-07512 Way, Michael and
Adam Kiehn 2013
Cultural Resources Survey ES0731
9851 Catawba Avenue, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California 92335,
Project No. 61131692
Outside
SB-07516 Puckett, Heather R. 2013 Slover, 10755 Oleander Avenue,
Fontana, California 92337. Outside
SB-07580 Tang, Bai “Tom” and
Michael Hogan 2014
Historical/Archaeological Resources
Survey Report: MIG/Hogle-Ireland
Fontana Industrial Development
Program, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
Outside
SB-07808 Way, Michael 2014
Addendum to Archaeological Report for
FCC Form 620 ES0371, 9851 Catawba,
Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California 92335.
Outside
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 12 NOVEMBER 2022
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The SCCIC records indicate that nineteen (19) cultural resources have been previously recorded within 1-mile of
the proposed Project site, none of which are located within or are adjacent to the proposed Project site. The closest
resource, the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks, is located approximately 89 meters (292 feet) south of the
proposed Project site and was determined to be ineligible for NRHP or CRHR listing. All 19 resources, including the
SPRR tracks, are historic built environment resources and fall outside of the scope of the present study and
therefore, will not be further addressed within this report. No historic period or prehistoric archaeological resources
were identified within the proposed Project site or 1-mile records search area. A bibliography of all 19 resources is
included in Appendix C of this report.
Review of Historical Topographical Maps and Aerial Photographs
Dudek consulted historical topographic maps and aerial photographs through the Nationwide Environmental Title
Research, LLC (NETR), to better understand any natural or human-made changes to the proposed Project site and
surrounding properties over time.
Historical Topographic Maps
Topographic maps depict elevation of the study area as well as the areas surrounding it and illustrate the location
of roads and some buildings. Although topographic maps are not comprehensive, they are another tool in
determining whether a study area has been disturbed and at times to what approximate depth. A review of available
topographic maps was conducted and includes the following years: 1896, 1898, 1901, 1905, 1909, 1913, 1926,
1929, 1938, 1943, 1946, 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1975, 1980, 1985, 2012, 2015, and 2018 (NETR
2022a). Table 2 summarizes the results of the historical topographic map review of the proposed Project site and
surrounding properties for all available years.
Table 2. Review of Historical Topographic Maps
Year Description
1896
The proposed Project site is shown as undeveloped.
Depicted to the south and outside of the proposed Project site is the east-west traveling
SPRR.
Depicted to the north and outside of the proposed Project site is the east-west traveling
Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe [Railroad].
1898-1938 There are no significant changes in the proposed Project site.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 13 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 2. Review of Historical Topographic Maps
Year Description
1943
There is one structure depicted on the northern of the proposed Project location within
APN 0251-321-35.
There is a structure outside of the proposed Project site, directly east of APN 0251-171-
19 and there a structure along the northwest border of APN 0251-171-19.
There is a primary highway depicted immediately north of the proposed Project site labeled
as “The Ocean to Ocean Highway” and is depicted as Highways 70 and 99 (present-day
Valley Boulevard).
Cypress [Road] and Juniper [Avenue] are depicted as light duty roads bordering the
proposed Project site to the west and east, respectively, and is consistent with the present-
day road configuration.
1946 This map depicts the same information as the 1938 map.
1955
The Ocean to Ocean Highway depicted on the 1943 is renamed and labeled on the map
as Valley Boulevard and is noted to have three lanes.
There are now 16 structures depicted within the proposed Project site, scattered
throughout APNs 0251-321-35, 0251-321-17, 0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-
20, 0251-321-21, 0251-321-22, 0251-321-23, 0251-321-26 and 0251-321-27. Seven
of the structures are along Valley Boulevard and four are along Juniper Avenue.
While there are structures within APN 0251-321-35, it depicted as an orchard.
Highways 70 and 99 are now located south of the proposed Project site, generally
following the footprint of present-day I-10.
North of Highways 70 and 99 and immediately south of the proposed Project site is an
east-west oriented unnamed light duty road (present-day Washington Drive).
1959
This map shows structures generally in the same location as the structures in the 1955
map; however, there are now six structures along Valley Boulevard and three structures
along Juniper Avenue.
Highways 70 and 99 are noted to have two lanes going westbound and two lanes going
eastbound.
1963 This map depicts the same information as the 1955 map.
1965 This map depicts the same information as the 1959 map.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 14 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 2. Review of Historical Topographic Maps
Year Description
1969
There is now a “Trailer Park” noted within the northern section of the proposed Project
site.
There are six structures along Valley Boulevard within APNs 0251-321-35, 0251-321-17,
0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, and 0251-321-21.
There are five structures along Juniper Avenue within APNs 0251-321-22, 0251-321-25,
0251-321-26, and 0251-321-27.
There is an unnamed road looping off of Juniper Avenue, circling the structure within APN
0251-321-22 within the northeast corner of the proposed Project site.
There are two structures along the unnamed light duty road to the south of the proposed
Project site (present-day Washington Drive), within APN 0251-171-19.
The orchard has decreased in size and is primarily within the northwest quadrant of the
proposed Project site.
1975
There are two additional structures depicted along the borders of APN 0251-171-19.
Highways 70 and 99 is now identified as the “San Bernardino Freeway”.
1980 and 1985 There are no significant changes depicted within the proposed Project site.
2012 and 2015
There are no structures depicted on the map, including within the proposed Project site.
The San Bernardino Freeway is not labeled on the map; however, the freeway now depicts
a symbol denoting it as a California Interstate highway “10”.
There is now an unnamed waterway depicted, traversing east-west, located south of the
unnamed light duty road (present-day Washington Drive) and north of the I-10.
2015 There are no significant changes depicted within the proposed Project site or immediate
vicinity.
2018
There is a road labeled Taylor Avenue is depicted, traveling east-west and shown as
intersecting the northwest quadrant of proposed Project site.
The unnamed light duty road to the south of the proposed Project site is now referred to
Washington [Drive], consistent with its present-day road configuration.
While topographic maps are informative, they do not illustrate the minute changes that can occur to a landscape overtime
and at times, are inconsistent with what is depicted year to year. Most often, structures depicted in topographical maps
are limited to those with community or social significance (e.g. Firehouses or Hospitals), including additions or changes
to roads and/or waterways. Nonetheless, the information gathered contributes to the understanding of the chronological
development of a study area.
Historical Aerial Photographs
A review of historical aerial photographs from the following years was conducted as part of the archival research
effort and includes the following years: 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012,
2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 (NETR 2022). Through careful comparative review of historical aerials, changes to
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 15 NOVEMBER 2022
the landscape of a study area may be revealed. Disturbance to the study area is specifically important as it helps
determine if soils within the study area are capable of sustaining intact archaeological deposits. Additionally,
historical aerials have the potential to reveal whether a study area was subjected to alluvial deposits by way of
flooding, debris flows or mudslides, as well as placement of artificial or foreign fill soils that may have buried intact
archaeological deposits. Table 3 summarizes the results of the aerial photograph review for all available years that
include the proposed Project site and surrounding properties.
Table 3. Historical Aerial Photograph Review
Year Description
1938
The earliest aerial photograph appears to show the proposed Project site as largely undeveloped
and in use as agricultural fields, specifically orchards.
There is an east-west road directly to the north of the proposed Project site, where present-day
Valley Boulevard is located.
There appears to be a north-south road or path directly to the east, lined with trees on either side,
where present-day Juniper Avenue is located.
There is a row of trees that borders the proposed Project site to the south, extending from the
western border up to the eastern border.
1948
There have been significant changes to the proposed Project site:
APN 0251-321-22 now has a structure in the northeast corner of the parcel. The orchard in this
parcel is graded in the northern area, and there appears to be an access road to the structure from
Juniper Avenue.
APN 0251-321-23 remains in use as an orchard.
APNs 0251-321-24, 0251-321-25, 0251-321-26, and 0251-321-27 appear to be in use as
agricultural fields.
There is a dividing line of trees running east to west across the southern boundaries of APNs 0251-
321-35, 0251-321-17, 0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, 0251-321-21 and 0251-321-
27. However, there is a structure within the southeast corner of APN 0251-321-27.
The northwestern corner of APN 0251-321-35, and the northern half portions of APNs 0251-321-
18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, and 0251-321-21 have multiple scattered structures; however,
due to the poor quality of the photograph, the exact number of structures within each parcel is
indistinguishable.
The remainder of APN 0251-321-35 is vacant and undeveloped and does not appear to be in use
as an orchard.
The southern half portions of APNs 0251-321-17, 0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, and
0251-321-21 remain as agricultural fields. However, there are structures within APNs APN 0251-
321-19 and APN 0251-321-20, though due to the poor quality of the photograph, the exact number
of structures within each parcel is indistinguishable.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 16 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 3. Historical Aerial Photograph Review
Year Description
1959
APN 0251-321-35 is vacant and appears to be in use for agricultural purposes. However, the
eastern portion of this parcel consists of development within a strip that is rectangular in shape,
similar to the parcels to the east, with at least four structures limited to the northern portion of this
strip.
APNs 0251-321-17, 0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, and 0251-321-21 appear to be
more clearly delineated. With buildings and/or structures primarily within the northern half portions
of these parcels and largely cleared areas within the southern half portions with the exception of
APN 0251-321-18, which appears to have a structure or building. Additionally, the southern half
portions of APNs 0251-321-20 and 0251-321-21 appear to remain in use as orchards.
There are several new structures (more than twenty) in APNs 0251-321-22 and 0251-321-23.
There is a large rectangular structure within APN 0251-321-25,
There are two structures within the eastern half portion of APN 0251-321-26 and the western half
portion of this parcel appears to remain in use as an orchard.
There are two or three structures within the southeast corner of APN 0251-321-27.
APN 0251-171-19, which extend south towards present-day Washington Drive, appears to have
five structures or trailers.
A north-south oriented road (present-day Juniper Avenue), bordering the proposed Project site to
the east, appears to now be a connected road.
1966 Due to the poor quality of the aerial photograph images captured are difficult to discern; however,
there no observable significant changes to the proposed Project site.
1985
There are new structures in APN 0251-321-25 and 0251-321-26 and there appears to be a tractor
trailer parked in APN 0251-321-26.
The road bordering the proposed Project site to the north (present-day Valley Boulevard) appears
to be paved road.
1994
There have been significant changes to the proposed Project site.
The structures within APNs 0251-321-22 and 0251-321-23 are gone and the area is an open field.
The structures within APNs 0251-321-25 and 0251-321-26 are gone, and the area graded.
There appears to be two structures in the APN 0251-321-27.
APN 0251-171-19 is cleared of structures and is a vacant field.
The trees that bordered the proposed Project site to the south are gone.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 17 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 3. Historical Aerial Photograph Review
Year Description
The structures that bordered the road immediately north of the proposed Project site (present-day
Valley Boulevard) are mostly gone, except in APNs 0251-321-35 and 0251-321-18.
2002
APNs 0251-321-35 and 0251-321-18 appear to be developed with structures limited to the
northern half portions.
The remainder of the proposed Project site appears to be cleared fields with occasional trees
2005 There are no significant changes to the proposed Project site.
2009
There have been significant changes to the proposed Project site.
All structures within the proposed Project site are gone; however, APN 0251-321-26 is being used
for tractor trailer parking.
The remainder of the proposed Project site is open field with occasional tree.
2010
APN 0251-321-18 appears to have overlay of unknown materials on the surface that is distinctly
different in color from the majority of the other parcels within the proposed Project site with the
exception of APNs 0251-321-25 and 0251-321-26, which appear to have similar surface coverage.
What is observed may represent concrete and/or gravel.
2012 The unknown material overlying APN 0251-321-18 has been reduced to a small area limited to the
northern portion of the parcel.
2014 APN 0251-321-35 is shown to have been subjected to substantial ground disturbance through
grading activities, including the parcels west of APN 0251-321-17.
2016 There are no significant changes to the proposed Project site.
2018 There are no significant changes to the proposed Project site.
2020 There are no significant changes to the proposed Project site.
Geotechnical Report Review
The geotechnical report, Geotechnical Investigation, AutoFit Fontana, 16655 Valley Boulevard, Fontana, CA 92335
(SPC Geotechnical, Inc. 2019), was prepared by SPC Geotechnical, Inc. for the current proposed Project site to
address subsurface conditions and to perform infiltration testing of the soils in support of the design for onsite
stormwater infiltration systems. The report details the results of seven (7) 8-inch-in-diameter hollow-stem auger
borings (B-1 through B-7) and three (3) infiltration tests (I-1 through I-3). These borings and infiltration tests were
placed at accessible locations throughout the proposed Project site and backfilled and tamped after the completion
of each investigation.
Subsurface exploratory borings extended to a maximum depth ranging from 3 to 31.5 feet below ground surface
(bgs) and were completed on February 25, 2019. According to the geotechnical report, the soils encountered
include: 1) Fills soils: characterized as typically brown silty sand with scattered rounded fine to coarse gravel and
generally loose to medium dense; 2) Alluvium (native soils): characterized as young alluvial fan deposits consisting
of dry to moist, medium dense to very dense brown, well-graded sand to silty sand with gravel, were identified
underlying fill soils to the maximum depths explored. A summary of the subsurface exploratory boring results is
provided in Table 4, below.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 18 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 4. Summary of Subsurface Boring Results – SPC Geotechnical, Inc. 2019
Boring Location Fill Soils Alluvium
(Native Soils)
Terminated
Depth
B-1 Northwest quadrant 0-3.25 feet bgs 3.25 to 4.5 feet bgs 4.5 feet bgs
B-2 Northwest quadrant 0-2.5 feet bgs 2.5 to 31.5 feet bgs 31.5 feet bgs
B-3 Southeast quadrant 0-3 feet bgs 3 to 31.5 feet bgs 31.5 feet bgs
B-4 Northeast quadrant 0-3 feet bgs 3 to 31.5 feet bgs 31.5 feet bgs
B-5 Center 0-2 feet bgs 2 to 20.9 feet bgs 20.9 feet bgs
B-6 East portion; mid-point 0-2 feet bgs 2 to 11.5 feet bgs 11.5 feet bgs
B-7 Southwest quadrant 0 to ~2.75 feet bgs ~2.75 to 31.5 feet bgs 31.5 feet bgs
I-1 Southwest quadrant 0-1.5 feet bgs 1.5 to 3.1 feet bgs 3.1 feet bgs
I-2 Southwest quadrant 0-2 feet bgs 2-3.1 feet bgs 3.1 feet bgs
I-3 Southern extension near
Washington Drive 0-1 feet bgs 1-3 feet bgs 3 feet bgs
Note: ~ denotes approximate depth.
Assembly Bill 52
The proposed Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to
TCRs as part of the CEQA process, and that the lead agency notify California Native American Tribal representatives
that have requested notification who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed
Project site. All records of correspondence related to AB 52 notification and any subsequent consultation are on
file with the City. A summary of the consultation record is provided and addressed in the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration document for the proposed Project.
1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map Review
Dudek cultural resources specialists reviewed sources commonly identified though Tribal consultation, notably the
1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map (Image 1). Based on this map, the proposed Project site is over 10 miles
southwest of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains and approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the Jurupa
Hills. Roadways mapped in close proximity to the proposed Project site include the “Old Salt Road”, approximately
0.3 miles to the northwest, and the confluence of this aforementioned road with another “Old Salt Road” also
identified as “Camino para Sal1”, approximately 1 mile to the northeast, and a Mission Road mapped approximately
3 miles to the south. Waterways mapped in the vicinity of the proposed Project site include the confluence of Lytle
Creek Wash and Cajon Wash, approximately 7.5 miles to the northeast. The historical route of the Santa Ana River,
which drains from these washes over 8 miles to the northeast of the proposed Project site, is depicted coursing
generally southeast before trending south where it meets with an unnamed waterway over 10 miles to the east,
and changing course towards the southwest, and is mapped approximately 7.5 miles south of the proposed Project
1 Mapped Point 9: Old Salt Road (Camino para Sal) “traversed once a year, [until] 1833, by armed caravan sent for year’s supply of
salt by Los Angeles, to salt beds at Salton” (Latker 2011).
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 19 NOVEMBER 2022
site. The “Sub. Mission of San Gabriel Mission2” is mapped well over 13 miles east of the proposed Project site.
Also depicted on the map, over 10 miles to the northeast of the proposed Project site, is a location symbolized with
a flag and labeled “Cp. San. Bdno. San Bernardino (1850)3”. Well outside the proposed Project site footprint but
within the general surrounding vicinity are five (5) Native American villages. The nearest mapped unnamed village
is nearly 8 miles to the southeast; a second unnamed village is located over 14 miles to the northeast; and a third
unnamed village is mapped over 9 miles to the east/southeast; a fourth unnamed village is mapped nearly 9 miles
to the southwest; and the fifth village labeled as “Cuca mogna” is mapped nearly 9 miles to the northwest, situated
just northwest of the confluence of the Santa Fe Trail and Old Stage Road in an area labeled as “New Mexico.”
It should be noted that this map is highly generalized due to scale and age and may be somewhat inaccurate with
regards to distance and location of mapped features. Additionally, this map was prepared based on review of
historic documents and notes more than 100 years following secularization of the missions (in 1833). Although the
map contains no specific primary references, it matches with the details documented by the Portolá expedition
(circa 1769–1770). The map is a valuable representation of post-colonization mission history; however, it is limited
to a specific period of Native American history and substantiation of the specific location and uses of the
represented individual features should be verified by archaeological records and/or other primary documentation.
No archaeological evidence of the nearest village on the 1938 Kirkman-Harriman map was provided in the SCCIC
records or as the result of a review of other archaeological information for the proposed Project site. This suggests
that the village is either likely no nearer than 1-mile from the proposed Project site or if existent within the records
search radius, subsurface deposits associated with the village have not yet been discovered.
2 Mapped Point 8: “San Bernardino Sub-Mission (Assistencia) of San Gabriel Mission, 1820. (In Old L.A. County [until] 1853” (Latker
2011).
3 Mapped Point 34: “Camp San Bernardino, near San Bernardino, on three sites during Civil War” (Latker 2011).
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 20 NOVEMBER 2022
Image 1: 1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map (Proposed Project Site Symbolized in Green)
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 21 NOVEMBER 2022
Field Survey
Methods
Dudek conducted an intensive-level archaeological pedestrian survey of the proposed Project site on November 11,
2022. The survey was conducted employing parallel transects, spaced no greater than 15 meters apart
(approximately 50 feet), where feasible and safe to do so. In areas of limited ground surface visibility due to the
presence of dense vegetation, including shrubs and trees, structures (e.g. existing fencing), piles of modern refuse,
concrete pad, areas overlaid with gravel, and parked or staged vehicles, formal transects were not utilized. Instead,
a mixed approach (opportunistic survey) and reconnaissance survey (visual inspection) were utilized, selectively
examining areas of exposed ground surfaces, where possible.
The survey of the approximately 11.6-acre proposed Project site included the following 13 parcels: APNs 0251-171-
19, 0251-321-17, 0251-321-18, 0251-321-19, 0251-321-20, 0251-321-21, 0251-321-22, 0251-321-23, 0251-
321-24, 0251-321-25, 0251-321-26, 0251-321-27, and 0251-321-35. The ground surface was inspected for
prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, groundstone tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock),
soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of
structures and/or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historical artifacts (e.g.,
metal, glass, ceramics, building materials). Ground disturbances such as rodent burrows, cut banks, base of trees
and shrubs, tilled areas, and informal dirt roads and paths, were also visually inspected for exposed subsurface
materials. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at Dudek’s Pasadena,
California office. All field practices met the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines for a cultural resources
inventory.
Results
Ground surface visibility within the proposed Project site was variable and as such, in areas of dense ground
coverage, surface scrapes were occasionally implemented, when necessary, to enhance detection of archaeological
materials that may have been obscured on the surface. Survey results for the 13 parcels that make up the proposed
Project site are discussed individually below. Note: the geotechnical study revealed that the proposed Project site
is predominately covered in fill soils although the origin of the soils was not mentioned. As such, any exposed soils
observed during the survey were likely fill soils and not a good representation of the native soils present prior to
development/ground disturbing activities.
APN 0251-171-19
This parcel exhibited evidence of tilling, which provided for excellent ground surface visibility (100 percent).
However, ground surface visibility within other areas of this parcel that had not been tilled varied as a result of the
vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed
ground soils and therefore, in these variable areas, ground surface visibility ranged from non-existent to good (0-
50 percent).
APN 0251-321-17
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 22 NOVEMBER 2022
This parcel exhibited evidence of tilling, which provided for excellent ground surface visibility (100 percent).
However, ground surface visibility within other areas of this parcel that had not been tilled varied as a result of the
vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed
ground soils and therefore, in these variable areas, ground surface visibility ranged from non-existent to good (0-
50 percent). However, of note, in areas within this parcel where homeless encampments were present, an
archaeological survey was not performed for safety purposes.
APN 0251-321-18
This parcel exhibited evidence of tilling, which provided for excellent ground surface visibility (100 percent).
However, ground surface visibility within other areas of this parcel that had not been tilled varied as a result of the
vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed
ground soils and therefore, in these variable areas, ground surface visibility ranged from non-existent to good (0-
50 percent).
APN 0251-321-19
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-20
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-21
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-22
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-23
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-24
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 23 NOVEMBER 2022
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-25
This parcel consists of an existing concrete pad and at the time of the survey, there were parked vehicles. Given
the current parcel conditions, ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent (0 percent) and was
therefore, not surveyed.
APN 0251-321-26
Portions of this parcel consists of an existing concrete pad and at the time of the survey, there were parked vehicles.
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the concrete pad, parked vehicles, vegetation, and
dense piles of modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current
parcel conditions, ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-27
Ground surface visibility within this parcel varied as a result of the vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of
modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed ground soils. Given the current parcel conditions,
ground surface visibility within this parcel was non-existent to good (0-50 percent).
APN 0251-321-35
This parcel exhibited evidence of tilling, which provided for excellent ground surface visibility (100 percent).
However, ground surface visibility within other areas of this parcel that had not been tilled varied as a result of the
vegetation, patches of gravel, and dense piles of modern refuse scattered throughout with limited areas of exposed
ground soils and therefore, in these variable areas, ground surface visibility ranged from non-existent to good (0-
50 percent). However, of note, in areas within this parcel where homeless encampments were present, an
archaeological survey was not performed for safety purposes.
Overall, the visible existing surface comprised of fill soils characterized as typically brown silty sand with scattered
rounded fine to coarse gravel and generally loose to medium dense, which are visible within all the proposed project
site as previously mentioned above. No cultural materials were identified as a result of the survey.
As previously mentioned in Geotechnical Report Review section, subsurface exploratory investigations identified fill
soils at depths from surface to between 1 and 3.25 feet bgs, depending on the location investigated, at all
boring/infiltration testing locations within the proposed Project site (see Table 4). The presence of the fill soil is an
indication that any potential cultural material from surface to between 1 and 3.25 feet bgs, has been previously
displaced from the primary depositional location, buried, or destroyed. Additionally, the presence of fill soils
demonstrates that the native soils upon and within which cultural deposits would exist in context was not observed
during the survey. No cultural materials were observed within any of the 13 parcels; however, due to the presence
of fill soils, observation of intact native soils was not possible.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 24 NOVEMBER 2022
Sensitivity Analysis
Archaeological Sensitivity
A search of the CHRIS database for the proposed Project site and 1-mile records search area did not identify any
previously recorded historic-period or prehistoric archeological resources. In addition, the CHRIS records search did
not identify any previous investigations within the proposed Project site, which suggests that the entirety of the
proposed Project site has not been subject to any previous archaeological investigations. According to the historical
topographic maps and aerial photographs review, the proposed Project site was depicted as undeveloped as early
as 1896. By 1938, the proposed Project site was in use for agricultural purposes and roadways were present.
Development within the proposed Project site began as early as the 1940s with the presence of structures scattered
throughout the proposed Project site, including the establishment of the formal roadways that border the proposed
Project site, including Valley Boulevard, Cypress Road, and Juniper Road. Development and removal of
structures/buildings within the proposed Project site continued through to the early 2010s, including the
establishment of Washington Drive and a trailer park within the northeastern quadrant of the proposed Project site
in 1969. By 2014, the proposed Project site had been subjected to substantial ground disturbance through grading
activities and the removal of all buildings/structures, consistent with present-day site conditions.
A review of a geotechnical report prepared for the proposed Project site determined that fills soils were identified
from surface to between 1 and 3.25 feet bgs within all exploratory boring/infiltration testing locations. Current
Project design indicates that the depths of ground disturbance across the proposed Project site is 5 feet below the
existing ground surface and up to 6 feet below the existing ground surface for underground utilities.
In consideration of all these factors, the potential to encounter intact cultural deposits containing archaeological
resources within soils from the current grade and between 1 and 3.25 feet bgs is unlikely. However, the potential
for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (below between 1 and 3.25 feet bgs) to the depths of proposed
ground disturbance is unknown. In the event that unanticipated archaeological are encountered during Project
implementation, impacts to these resources could be significant. As such, the following management
recommendations are provided to ensure that impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources and human
remains would be treated properly resulting in a less than significant impact.
Management Recommendations
The following measures have been developed to ensure that any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
will be treated appropriately and in accordance with CEQA regulations: preconstruction training, retention of an on-
call archaeologist to address inadvertent discoveries, and inadvertent discovery clause implemented and included
on all construction plans. Dudek further recommends an additional survey be conducted once fill soils have been
removed. If cultural materials are observed during the course of ground disturbing activities below fill soils, then
subsurface testing may be required. These measures will ensure the potential Project impacts to archaeological
resources and human remains would be less than significant.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 25 NOVEMBER 2022
Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources
Workers Environmental Awareness Program Training. All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained
archaeologists shall be briefed regarding inadvertent discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic
presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper identification and treatment of
inadvertent discoveries. The purpose of the Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to
provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the
Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources.
Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains
are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and
the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor.
Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained and on-call to respond and address
any inadvertent discoveries identified for the duration of construction activities. Additionally, in consideration of the
potential to encounter intact cultural deposits beneath fill soils, the qualified archaeologist shall survey the proposed
Project site once fill soils have been removed to ensure no cultural deposits underly the fill layer. If is determined, based
on the survey after the removal of fill soils, that cultural resources are present or may be present that may be impacted
during Project construction, monitoring may be warranted. If it is determined that monitoring is warranted, a qualified
archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, should
oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the
observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The archaeological monitor will
be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.
Inadvertent Discovery Treatment and Protocol. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts)
are exposed during construction activities for the proposed Project, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the
find should immediately stop and a qualified archaeologist should notified immediately to assess the significance of the
find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If human remains or suspected human remains are
discovered, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find should immediately stop. Depending upon the
significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery,
or monitoring may be warranted.
Within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared and
submitted to the City for review. This report should document compliance with approved mitigation, document the
monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report shall be submitted to the SCCIC.
In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the
county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or
any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the county coroner has
determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the county coroner determines that
the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she shall follow all required protocols according to
California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 26 NOVEMBER 2022
Should you have any questions relating to this report and its findings, please do not hesitate to contact me directly
at lkry@dudek.com or Heather McDaniel McDevitt at hmcdevitt@dudek.com.
Sincerely,
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Kry, B.A., RA Heather McDaniel McDevitt, M.A., RPA
Archaeologist Archaeologist
Att: Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B. (Confidential) SCCIC Records Search Information Appendix C. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Bibliography
cc: Jennifer De Alba, Sean Kilkenny, Kristen Stoner, Dudek
TO: MR. JARED SAMMET
SUBJECT: DRAFT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT
PROJECT, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14386.05 27 NOVEMBER 2022
References
Calflora. 2022. What Grows Here. Accessed August 2022. https://www.calflora.org/entry/wgh.html
California Geological Survey. 2002. California Department of Conservation California Geomorphic Provinces.
Accessed November 2022.
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastalvoices/resources/California_Geomorphic_Provinces.pdf
Laktker, Loren. 2011. Pictorial and Historical Map of Old Los Angeles County: Key to [Kirkman Harriman 1938
Historical] Map.
NETR. 2022a. Topographic maps of Project Site, dating from 1896 - 2018. Accessed November 2022.
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
NETR. 2022b. Historical Aerial Photographs of Project Site, dating from 1938 - 2018. Accessed November 2022.
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
OHP (Office of Historic Preservation). 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Available online
October 2021. Website: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1069.
SPC Geotechnical, Inc. 2019. Geotechnical Investigation - AutoFit Fontana, 16655 Valley Boulevard, Fontana, CA
92335
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2022a. Web Soil Survey. ttps://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
App/HomePage.htm. Accessed August 2022.
USDA. 2022b. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TUJUNGA.html. Accessed November 2022.
Appendix A
Figures
Da
t
e
:
1
1
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
J
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
E
I
N
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
3
8
6
0
5
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
a
p
.
m
xd
JURUPA
VALLEY
MERRILL
AL
D
E
R
SI
E
R
R
A
SAN BERNARDINO
CI
T
R
U
S
SLOVER
SOURCE: USGS National Map 2022
02,0001,000 Feet
Project Site
FIGURE 1
Anaheim
Apple Valley
Baldwin Park
Banning
Beaumont
Big Bear Lake
Bradbury
Brea
Buena
Park
Calimesa
Canyon Lake
Chino
Hills
Claremont
Colton
Corona
Costa Mesa
Eastvale
Fontana
Glendora
GrandTerrace
Hemet
Hesperia
Highland
Industry
Irvine
Irwindale
Jurupa Valley
La Habra
La Habra Heights
La Puente
LaVerne
LakeElsinore
Lake Forest
LomaLinda
Menifee
Monrovia
Montclair
onMoreeVallyNorco
Ontario
Orange Perris
Placentia
Pomona
Rancho
Cucamonga
Redlands
Rialto
Riverside
SanBernardino
San Dimas
SanJacinto
Santa
Ana Tustin
Upland
VillaPark
Walnut
YorbaLinda
Yucaipa
Riverside
County
Los Angeles
County
395
18
57
60
259
91
39
133
189
39
206
22
71
55
330
90
83
79
241
74
173
38
60
66
2
138
5
15
215
10
15
605
405
210
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
Project Site
Project Location
Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
Da
t
e
:
1
1
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
J
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
E
I
N
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
3
8
6
0
5
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V
i
c
i
n
i
ty
.
m
x
d
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022
0 10050Feet
Project Site
Project Parcels
FIGURE 2
Project Site
Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
Appendix B (Confidential)
SCCIC Records Search Results
Appendix C
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Bibliography
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
14386.03 JPI Fontana
P-36-010330 CA-SBR-010330H Resource Name - Union Pacific
Railroad;
Other - Southern Pacific Railroad;
Other - West Line Basin
Alignment;
Other - Union Pacific Railroad
Crossing at Anderson Street;
Other - 19-186112
SB-04335, SB-
05495, SB-05614,
SB-06720, SB-
07451, SB-07666,
SB-07955
Structure,
Object
Historic AH07; HP39 1999 (S. Ashkar, Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.);
2002 (Goodwin, R., LSA Associates,
Inc.);
2008 (Harper, C.D., SWCA);
2010 (Tibbet, C., LSA Associates,
Inc.);
2012 (Paul, Daniel D., ICF
International)
P-36-011567 CA-SBR-011567H Resource Name - ASM 3470-1 SB-07055Structure,
Site
Historic AH02; AH03; HP33 2002 (ASM)
P-36-013852 Resource Name - 16111 Hunter
Ave, Fontana
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022001 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013853 16157-B Valley Blvd, Fontana;
Resource Name - Snowden
Residence
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP02; HP06 2000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013854 16111 Valley Blvd, Fontana;
Resource Name - Union 76 Gas
Sta & Food Mart
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP062001 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013855 10129 Citrus Ave, Fontana;
Resource Name - Smog Busters
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP062001 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013856 10161 Citrus Ave, Fontana;
Resource Name - Painter
Residence
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc.)
P-36-013857 10177 Citrus Ave, Fontana;
Resource Name - Grey Residence
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP02; HP33 2000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc.)
P-36-013858 10207 Citrus Ave, Fontana;
Resource Name - Baker
Residence
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013859 Resource Name - 16116
Washington Dr, Fontana
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013860 Resource Name - 16166
Washington Dr, Fontana
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013861 Resource Name - 16112 Boyle
Ave, Fontana
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013862 Resource Name - 10462 Citrus
Ave, Fontana
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
Page 1 of 2 SBAIC 7/27/2022 11:31:05 AM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
14386.03 JPI Fontana
P-36-013863 10444 Citrus Ave, Fontana;
Resource Name - Olson
Residence
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013864 Resource Name - 16085 Boyle
Ave, Fontana
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP022000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-013865 16056 Valley Blvd, Fontana;
Resource Name - Citrus Market
SB-04258BuildingHistoricHP062000 (J. Marvin, LSA Associates,
Inc)
P-36-014467 9961 Sierra Ave, Fontana;
Resource Name - Kaiser Fontana
Medical Center Campus
Building Historic HP41 2008 (C. Gregory, SRI)
P-36-020000 Resource Name - 17363 San
Bernardino Ave, Fontana
SB-07309SiteHistoricHP03; HP29 2002 (ALEXANDROWICZ,
Archaeological Consulting Services)
P-36-026954 Resource Name - CRM Tech
2762-1
SB-07580BuildingHistoricHP022013 (Terri Jaquemain, CRM Tech)
Page 2 of 2 SBAIC 7/27/2022 11:31:05 AM