HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix E - Cultural Resources ReportsAPPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTS
APPENDIX E1
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
Sobrato Project
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:
Candyce Burnett
Kimley-Horn
3880 Lemon Street Suite 420
Riverside, California 92501
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
BCR Consulting LLC
505 West 8th St.
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. KIM2118
National Archaeological Data Base Information:
Type of Study: Reconnaissance Cultural Resources Assessment
Resources Recorded: KIM2118-H-1 Historic-Period Utility Pole
Keywords: Fontana
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Devore, California (1988)
November 30, 2021
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sobrato (the project) located in the City of Fontana
(City), San Bernardino County, California. Tasks completed for the scope of work include a
cultural resources records search, an intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources survey, a
Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a
paleontological overview. These tasks were performed in partial fulfillment of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The records search revealed revealed that
17 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of 14 cultural
resources (all historic-period) within one half-mile of the project site. Two previous studies
have assessed the project site for cultural resource but did not identify any cultural
resources within its boundaries.
During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists identified a historic-period wood
utility pole temporarily designated KIM2118-H-1. It is part of a larger alignment with similar
poles that are all contemporary. The isolated utility pole is not recommended eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and as such is not a
historical resource under CEQA. Due to a lack of historical resources located within the
project site, BCR Consulting recommends that no additional cultural resources work or
monitoring is necessary for any proposed project activities. However, if previously
undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities, a qualified
archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find,
diverting construction excavation if necessary.
Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The NAHC has
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more
information regarding this finding. BCR Consulting has emailed the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh nation. A response is pending.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the
project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The
appended Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan
deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial
units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to
be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the
likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would
increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project
area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the
Sobrato Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the
Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically
significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
iii
is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should
be observed.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect
the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY...................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING ...................................................................................................1
NATURAL SETTING..................................................................................................................4
CULTURAL SETTING ...............................................................................................................4
PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ..................................................................................................4
ETHNOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................5
HISTORY .............................................................................................................................5
PERSONNEL .............................................................................................................................7
METHODS .................................................................................................................................7
RESEARCH .........................................................................................................................7
FIELD SURVEY ...................................................................................................................8
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................8
RESEARCH .........................................................................................................................8
FIELD SURVEY ...................................................................................................................9
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS ...............................................................................................9
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................9 CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATIONS ...................................................................... 10
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 10
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 12
FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................2
TABLES
A: Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site ..............................................8
APPENDICES
A: DPR523 SITE RECORDS B: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
C: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
D: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
E: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
1
INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to conduct a
Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sobrato Project (the project) located in the City of
Fontana (City), San Bernardino County, California. An intensive-level pedestrian cultural
resources survey of the project site was completed in partial fulfillment of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The project site is located in Section 25 of
Township 1 North, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Devore, California (1988) 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects
undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of
Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)).
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that
meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources
(California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code
§ 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §
5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,
military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the
lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).
The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project 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 the California Register. If an
impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible
measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of
significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on
the resource.
Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally,
a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
3
meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), §
15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the
National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one of
more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California
Register.
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources
of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical
resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic
preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for
Designation:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in
order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this
report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be
evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California
Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the
resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on
paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on
paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code
specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor.
Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of
paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to
analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential
impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in
the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not
summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by professional
paleontologists from the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix D.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
4
NATURAL SETTING
The elevation of the project site is approximately 1500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The project site is composed of alluvial fan deposits derived from Lytle Creek dating from
the Late Pleistocene to Holocene (Dibblee Jr. 2003). The current study has not yielded any
evidence that local sediments have produced raw materials used in prehistoric tool
manufacture within 0.5-miles of the project site. Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches
annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37).
Although recent and historical impacts have decimated local vegetation, remnants of a formerly dominant coastal sage scrub vegetation community have been sporadically
observed in the area. Signature plant species include black sage (Salvia mellifera),
California brittlebush (Encelia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum),
California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), golden yarrow
(Eriophyllum confertiflorum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus
integrifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diverilobum), purple sage (Salvia leucophyla), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), sugar bush (Rhus ovate), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), coastal century plant (Agave shawii), coastal cholla
(Opuntia prolifera), Laguna Beach liveforever (Dudleya stolonifera), many-stemmed
liveforever (Dudleya multicaulis), our Lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei), prickly pear cactus
(Opuntia sp.) (Williams et al. 2008:118-119). Signature animal species within Coastal Sage
Scrub habitat include the kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), California horned lizard
(Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), orange throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperthrus),
San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater), California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), California quail (Callipepla californica), and San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunnecapillus
sandiegensis) (Williams et al. 2008:118-120). Local native groups made use of many of
these species (see Lightfoot and Parrish 2008).
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The local prehistoric cultural setting has been organized into many chronological
frameworks (see Warren and Crabtree 1986; Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Lanning 1963;
Hunt 1960; Wallace 1958, 1962, 1978; Campbell and Campbell 1935), although there is no
definitive sequence for the region. The difficulties in establishing cultural chronologies for
western San Bernardino County are a function of its enormous size and the small amount of
archaeological excavations conducted there. Moreover, throughout prehistory many groups have occupied the area and their territories often overlap spatially and chronologically
resulting in mixed artifact deposits. Due to dry climate and capricious geological processes,
these artifacts rarely become integrated in-situ. Lacking a milieu hospitable to the
preservation of cultural midden, local chronologies have relied upon temporally diagnostic
artifacts, such as projectile points, or upon the presence/absence of other temporal
indicators, such as groundstone. Such methods are instructive, but can be limited by
prehistoric occupants’ concurrent use of different artifact styles, or by artifact re-use or re-
sharpening, as well as researchers’ mistaken diagnosis, and other factors (see Flenniken
1985; Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989). Recognizing the shortcomings of comparative temporal indicators, this study recommends review of Warren
and Crabree (1986), who have drawn upon this method to produce a commonly cited and
relatively comprehensive chronology.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
5
Ethnography
The project site vicinity has been peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano. Each
group consisted of semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers who spoke a variation of the Takic
language subfamily. Individual ethnographic summaries are provided below.
Gabrielino. The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers
reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith
1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when
Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other
brief encounters took place over the years, and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing
numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the
Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and
customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gabrielino
villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and
intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often
administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to
have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights
and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing
grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland
regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine
mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote,
bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles
were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).
Serrano. The Uto-Aztecan “Serrano” people occupied the western Mojave Desert periphery.
Kroeber (1925) applied the generic term “Serrano” to four groups, each with distinct
territories: the Kitanemuk, Tataviam, Vanyume, and Serrano. Only one group, in the San
Bernardino Mountains and West-Central Mojave Desert, ethnically claims the term Serrano.
Bean and Smith (1978) indicate that the Vanyume, an obscure Takic population, was found
along the Mojave River at the time of Spanish contact. The Kitanemuk lived to the north and
west, while the Tataviam lived to the west. The Serrano lived mainly to the south (Bean and
Smith 1978). All may have used the western Mojave area seasonally (see deBarros 2004;
Lightfoot and Parrish 2009). Historical records are unclear concerning precise territory and
village locations. History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period
(1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period
(1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a
guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the
desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in
1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta
California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for
San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino,
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
6
crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the
San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to
decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions,
reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes
(Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States
primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle
industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.
Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for
beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However,
beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from
New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market
collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the
economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and
real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic
pursuits that have continued to proliferate to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland
1941).
Local Sequence (Brunzell 2017:5). In 1851, Mormons settling in the San Bernardino Valley
purchased the land from Don Antonio Maria Lugo. Early communities in the San Bernardino
County area started with this group of Mormons, although most returned to Salt Lake City in
1857. The Southern Pacific Railroad moved into the San Bernardino Valley in 1875, and the
Santa Fe Railroad built a stop in the Fontana area in 1887, naming it Rosena. A trickle of
settlement continued, and there were around 25 families living there by the time A. B. Miller
arrived in 1905. He purchased the land the next year, and a town was laid out in 1909.
Settlement was successfully promoted by a dedication ceremony and celebration in 1913, at
which a number of plots in the area were sold. By 1927, there were 399 families with land in
the area, and the township was officially created in 1929.
The Semi-Tropic Water and Land Company incorporated in 1887 to sell real estate and
water rights in San Bernardino County. The company acquired 285,000 acres of land along
ten miles of Lytle Creek, giving it riparian rights and allowing it to control and sell the water.
The company laid out small towns including Fontana, Rialto, Sansevaine, and Bloomington
on its land holdings. In 1891, the company subdivided most of the land surrounding the town
sites into 20-acre parcels it called “farm lots.” Successful agricultural endeavors resulted in
residential and institutional expansion during the 1920s. Between 1924 and 1926, the school
district was established, the American Legion Post 262 was constructed, and the Fontana
Woman’s Club House was established and constructed. Proliferation of the automobile was
accompanied by an expanded infrastructure of paved roads and two garages and several
service stations were constructed.
Fontana remained an agricultural area for the first few decades of its existence; citrus, grain,
grape, poultry, cattle, and swine production formed the basis of the local economy. World
War II changed this dynamic with the establishment of the Fontana Kaiser Steel plant in
1942, the first steel mill west of the Mississippi. Fontana quickly became the West Coast’s
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
7
leading steel producer, and the plant remained in operation until 1984. Mickey Thompson’s
Fontana International Drag Way, an important drag racing strip, was established in the
1950s. While it no longer operates, Fontana retains a connection to drag racing with both a
new drag strip and an automobile museum. Today, Fontana has a population of over
175,000 and occupies approximately 56 square miles. Shipping and trucking play a major
role in the city’s economy.
PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the
current study and compiled the technical report. The South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological
records search. BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nicholas Shepetuk and Field
Technician Fabian Reyes-Martinez completed the pedestrian field survey.
METHODS
This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, the Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter
2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article
5, Section 15064.5. The pedestrian cultural resources survey was intended to locate and
document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites,
features, isolates, and historic-period buildings, that exceed 45 years in age within defined
project boundaries. The project site was examined using 15-meter transect intervals, where
accessible. This study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within
the project boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the above-
referenced regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will
address potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks completed include:
• Cultural resources records search to review any studies conducted and the resulting
cultural resources recorded within a one half-mile radius of the project boundaries
• Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire project site
• California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility evaluation
for any cultural resources discovered
• Development of recommendations and mitigation measures for cultural resources
documented within the project boundaries, following CEQA
• Completion of DPR 523 forms for any discovered cultural resources
• Vertebrate paleontology resources report through the Western Science Center
• Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission.
Research
Records Search. Prior to the field survey a records search was conducted at the South
Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. This archival
research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, and
survey and excavation reports completed within one half-mile of the current project.
Additional resources reviewed included the National Register, the California Register, and
documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation. These
include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest,
Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
8
Additional Research. BCR Consulting performed additional research through records of
the General Land Office Maintained by the Bureau of Land Management, the San
Bernardino County Assessor, and through various Internet resources.
Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on
September 2, 2021. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced
approximately 15 meters apart across 100 percent of the project site, where accessible.
Cultural Resources were recorded on DPR 523 forms. Ground visibility averaged
approximately 50 percent within project boundaries. Digital photographs were taken at
various points within the project site. These included overviews as well as detail
photographs of all cultural resources. Cultural resources were recorded per the California
OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources in the field using:
• Detailed note taking for entry on DPR Forms (see Appendix A)
• Hand-held Garmin Global Positioning systems for mapping purposes
• Digital photography of all cultural resources (see Appendix A and E).
RESULTS
Research
The SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton completed the archaeological records
search. This research has revealed that 17 cultural resource studies have taken place
resulting in the recording of 14 cultural resources (all historic-period) within one half-mile of
the project site. Two previous studies have assessed the project site for cultural resource
but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. Results are summarized in
Table A, and a comprehensive records search bibliography is provided in Appendix B.
Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site
USGS 7.5 Min. Quad. Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of Project Site
Cultural Resource
Studies Within One Half-
Mile of Project Site
Devore,
California
(1988)
P-36-7326: Historic-Period Foundations/Refuse (1/4 Mile S)
P-36-9366: Historic-Period Road (1/2 Mile SW)
P-36-9367: Historic-Period Well/Cistern (1/2 Mile NW)
P-36-14191: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile S)
P-36-14192: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile SE)
P-36-14193: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile SE)
P-36-14194: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile E)
P-36-14195: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile E)
P-36-14196: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile ESE)
P-36-15376: Grapeland Homesteads (1/2 Mile NE)
P-36-20915: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile E)
P-36-20916: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/4 Mile E)
P-36-20917: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/8 Mile E)
P-36-20918: Historic-Period Standing Structure (1/8 Mile E)
SB-0398, 1611, 1611A,
2621*, 2765, 2766, 3172,
3173, 3174, 4209, 4547,
4548*, 5095, 6016, 6392,
6414, 6450
*Previously assessed the project site for cultural resources.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
9
Additional Research. Historic aerial photos indicate that the project site was occupied by
pre-World War II residential structures, which have all been demolished. These were
serviced by an electrical distribution alignment that was constructed between 1938 and 1959
(United States Department of Agriculture 1938, 1959).
Field Survey
During the field survey Mr. Shepetuk and Mr. Reyes-Martinez carefully inspected the project
site and identified a historic-period wood utility pole. An inspection tag on the pole indicates
that it was in place by 1945. This item has been temporarily designated KIM2118-H-1. The
pole is part of a utility alignment comprised of contemporary wood poles. The project site
has been subject to mechanical excavation and clearing associated with demolition of
former residences, and by discing associated with weed abatement. Non-diagnostic
construction debris such as fragments of bricks can be found in various locations throughout
the site. Sediments included dry grayish brown silty sand with moderate levels of gravel
which is sub rounded.
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS
During the field survey, a historic-utility pole was identified. Research shows that the pole
was part of a utility alignment that was in place between 1938 and 1945. None of the other
original poles from the alignment remain in place. CEQA calls for the evaluation and
recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the
significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register.
Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are
those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation under a local
ordinance.
Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on
National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California
Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
10
ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
California Register Evaluations
KIM2118-H-1. Criterion 1: Substantial research has not indicated a close association
between the wood pole and any important events. It is therefore not eligible for the California
Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Substantial research has failed to connect the wood
pole with the lives of persons important in California’s past. It is therefore not eligible for the
California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3: The remaining elements do not embody
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent
the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Therefore, the wood pole is not eligible
under Criterion 3. Criterion 4: The wood pole has not and is not likely to yield information
important in prehistory or history and is therefore not eligible for listing under Criterion 4. The
wood pole is therefore recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on
the California Register, and as such are not recommended historical resources under
CEQA.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to a lack of historical resources located within the project site, BCR Consulting
recommends that no additional cultural resources work or monitoring is necessary for any proposed project activities. However, if previously undocumented cultural resources are
identified during earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to
assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if
necessary.
Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The NAHC has
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more
information regarding this finding. BCR Consulting has emailed the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh nation. A response is pending.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the
project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The
appended Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan
deposits dating to the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial
units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to
be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the
likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial sediments would
increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project
area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the
Sobrato Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the
Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically
significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
11
is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should
be observed.
If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect
the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
12
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bettinger, Robert L., and R.E. Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin and Interior
Southern California. Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Papers 3:1-26.
Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's
Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians
of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts
Press, Santa Ana.
Brunzell, David
2017 Cultural Resources Assessment El Paseo Project, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California. On File at the South-Central Coastal Information
Center. Fullerton, California.
Campbell, E., and W. Campbell
1935 The Pinto Basin. Southwest Museum Papers 9:1-51.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino,
California: Huntington Library.
deBarros, Phil 2004 Cultural Resources Overview and Management Plan Rancho Las Flores Project,
Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California. On File at the SCCIC.
Dibblee Jr., Thomas W.
2003 Geologic Map of the Devore Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California.
Electronic Document: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71731.htm. Accessed 9/10/2021.
Flenniken, J.J.
1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. Stone Tool Analysis: Essays
in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods, and M.G. Pavesic.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Flenniken, J.J. and A.W. Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and
Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
13
Flenniken, J.J. and Philip J. Wilke
1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of Great Basin Dart Points. American
Anthropologist 91:149-158.
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of
1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Hunt, Alice P. 1960 The Archaeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California. University of Utah
Anthropological Papers No. 47.
Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History
Guides: 13. University of California Press. Los Angeles
Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted in 1976, Dover. New York.
Lanning, Edward P. 1963 The Archaeology of the Rose Spring Site (Iny-372). University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3):237-336.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment, an Introduction. UC Press, Berkeley.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum
Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.
United States Department of Agriculture
1959 Historic Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: www.historicaerials.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
1938 Historic Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document:
www.historicaerials.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
United States Geological Survey
1988 Devore, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Wallace, William J. 1958 Archaeological Investigation in Death Valley National Monument. University of
California Archaeological Survey Reports 42:7-22.
1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American
Antiquity 28(2):172-180.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
14
1978 The Southern Valley Yokuts, and The Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of the
North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp. 448-470.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Warren, Claude N. and R.H. Crabtree
1986 The Prehistory of the Southwestern Great Basin. In Handbook of the North
American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp.183-193.
W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California
Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: KIM2118-H-1
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Devore, California Date: 1988 T 1N; R 6W; Section 25; SBBM
c. Address: Lytle Creek RD City: Fontana Zip: 92336
d. UTM: Zone: 11S; 456987 mE/ 3777601 mN (G.P.S.; NAD83) Elevation: 1504 Feet AMSL
e. Other Locational Data: The wooden utility pole is located approximately 58 feet east of Ross Way.
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements: design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, boundaries)
This resource consists of a single wood utility pole with an inspection tag that indicates a pre-1945 construction date. It features a
modern guy wire, anchor, and streetlight. Aerial photos indicate that it was constructed after 1938 associated with development of a
large residential property. This utility pole does not appear to be a historical resource because it is not eligible for the California
Register. Please see report for additional detail.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP28. Street furniture.
P5b. Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #) Resource
overview, 09/02/21, View North.
*P6. Date Built; Age and Source:
Historic
Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
Southern California Edison
*P8. Recorded by:
F. Martinez
BCR Consulting LLC
505 W. 8th Street,
Claremont, CA 91711
*P9. Date: 09/02/21
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sobrato Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County California.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
APPENDIX B
RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-00398 1976 ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL
RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF AREA
PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
FACILITIES FOR FIRE PROTECTION
SERVICES AND SHERIFF'S CURATION
SERVICES
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY MUSEUM
ASSOCIATION
HEARN, JOSEPH E.NADB-R - 1060398;
Voided - 76-10.8
SB-01611 1986 A CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE LA CUESTA
PROPERTY, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO BISSELL, RONALD M.36-006588NADB-R - 1061611;
Paleo - ;
Voided - 86-12.7
SB-01611A 1986 ASSESSMENT OF THE
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR
THE LA CUESTA SPECIFIC PLAN,
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
RMW PALEO RASCHKE, ROD
SB-02621 1992 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN
THE NORTH FONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE
AREA, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES
ALEXANDROWICZ, J.
STEVEN, ANNE Q.
DUFFIELD-STOLL,
JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA, SUSAN R.
ALEXANDROWICZ,
ARTHUR A. KUHNER,
and ERIC SCOTT
36-004296, 36-006110, 36-006111,
36-006251, 36-006583, 36-006584,
36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587,
36-006588, 36-006589, 36-006807,
36-006808, 36-006809, 36-006810,
36-006811, 36-006812, 36-006813,
36-006814, 36-006815, 36-006816
NADB-R - 1062621;
Voided - 92-2.20A-B
SB-02765 1993 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
SURVEY AND INVENTORY FOR THE
SIERRA LAKES WEST PROJECT AREA,
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1062765
SB-02766 1993 ADDENDUM REPORT: A PHASE I
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION
FOR THE SIERRA LAKES WEST PROJECT
AREA, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CA
MCKENNA ET ALLMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1062766
SB-03172 1996 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE
INVESTIGATION OF THE LANDINGS 750
LLC PROJECT AREA, A 200 +/- ACRE
PROPERTY LOCATED IIN NORTH
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 51PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A. and RICHARD S.
SHEPARD
36-009363, 36-009364, 36-009365NADB-R - 1063172
Page 1 of 3 SBAIC 11/16/2021 10:04:03 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-03173 1997 PHASE III CUTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION: ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
LANDINGS 750 LLC PROJECT AREA, A 200
+/- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN NORTH
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 45PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A. and RICHARD S.
SHEPARD
36-009363, 36-009364, 36-009365,
36-009366
NADB-R - 1063173
SB-03174 1996 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION OF THE SUMMIT
HEIGHTS PROJECT AREA, LOCATED IN
NORTH FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CA. 35PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A. and RICHARD S.
SHEPARD
36-009367, 36-009368, 36-009369,
36-009370
NADB-R - 1063174
SB-04209 2004 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
INVESTIGATION OF THE FONTANA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #33 PROJECT
AREA IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA 40PP
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1064209
SB-04547 2005 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:
FAIRFIELD APARTMENTS PROJECT SITE,
APN: 0226-135-03, FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 7PP
BON TERRA CONSULTINGSHEPARD, RICHARDNADB-R - 1064547
SB-04548 2005 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:
LYTLE CREEK APARTMENTS PROJECT
SITE, FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CA. 14PP\]
BON TERRA CONSULTINGSHEPARD, RICHARDNADB-R - 1064548
SB-05095 2005 CULTURAL RESOURCE RECORDS
SEARCH AND SITE VISIT RESULTS FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
CANDIDATE HORIZON TOWER-
FONTANNA, 6498 CATAWBA AVENUE,
FONTANNA, SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA
BONNER, WAYNE H.NADB-R - 1065095
SB-06016
SB-06392
SB-06414 2009 Addendum to Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Report, Fontana Sports
Park Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California.
Tang, Bai "Tom"NADB-R - 1066414
Page 2 of 3 SBAIC 11/16/2021 10:04:04 AM
Report List
Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs
SB-06450 2009 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report: Fontana Sports Park Project, City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
CRM TechTang, Bai "Tom", Terri
Jacquemain, and Daniel
Ballester
NADB-R - 1066450
Page 3 of 3 SBAIC 11/16/2021 10:04:04 AM
Primary No.Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by
P-36-007326 CA-SBR-007326H 08-SBd-30-PS-12 AH02; AH04 1992 (Sutton / Hammond)
P-36-009366 CA-SBR-009366H LANDINGS 750 LLC SITE 4;
HISTORIC CAJON RD
SB-03173AH071997 (McKenna et al)
P-36-009367 CA-SBR-009367H SUMMIT HEIGHTS 4 SB-03174AH051996 (SHEPARD)
P-36-014191 15572 Highland Ave, Fontana;
Green Property
AH15 1989 (A. Gallup)
P-36-014192 15674 Highland Ave, Fontana;
Johnson House
AH15 1989 (A. Gallup)
P-36-014193 6554 Knox, Fontana;
Chapman House
AH15 1989 (A. Gallup)
P-36-014194 6401 Cooper, Fontana AH15 1989 (A. Gallup)
P-36-014195 6406 Cooper, Fontana;
Burgeno House
AH15 1989 (A. Gallup)
P-36-014196 15860 Highland, Fontana AH15 1989 (A. Gallup)
P-36-015376 Resource Name - Grapeland
Homesteads & Water Works;
PHI - SBR-116
SB-04012, SB-05691Building,
Structure,
Other
Historic HP22; HP29; HP30;
HP33; HP39
1987 (Anicic, John, Fontana
Historical Society);
1989;
2016
P-36-020915 6327 Knox Ave, Fontana AH15 2009 (CRM Tech)
P-36-020916 6335 Cooper Ave, Fontana AH15 2009 (CRM Tech)
P-36-020917 6304 Knox Ave, Fontana AH15 2009 (CRM Tech)
P-36-020918 15669 Sierra Lakes Parkway,
Fontana
AH15 2009 (CRM Tech)
Page 1 of 1 SBAIC 11/16/2021 10:03:50 AM
Resources highlighted in green have been previously verified by SCCIC staff.
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
APPENDIX C
NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 1
October 5, 2021
Johnny Defachelle
BCR Consulting LLC
Via Email to: johnny.defachelle@gmail.com
Re: Sobrato Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Defachelle:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF)
was completed for the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results
were positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the
attached list for information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in
the SLF, nor are they required to do so. A SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Other sources of
cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded
sites, such as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS)
archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological 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. Please contact all of those listed; if they
cannot supply information, they may 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
the NAHC. 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: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-Stenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER [Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
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
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
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
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
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
christina.marsden@alumni.usc.ed
u
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 Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
roadkingcharles@aol.com
Gabrielino
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
1 of 2
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 Sobrato Project, San Bernardino
County.
PROJ-2021-
004995
10/05/2021 10:19 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
10/5/2021
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
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
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@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
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
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
2 of 2
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 Sobrato Project, San Bernardino
County.
PROJ-2021-
004995
10/05/2021 10:19 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
10/5/2021
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
APPENDIX D
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org
BCR Consulting LLC September 27, 2021
Johnny Defachelle
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Defachelle,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Citrus East Project in the city
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project site is located south of Sierra Lakes
Parkway, north of Interstate 210, east of Lytle Creek Road, and west of Maloof Avenue in
Township 1 North, Range 6 West in Section 25 on the Devore, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.
The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating to
the Holocene (Dibblee & Minch, 2003). While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of
high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively
modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial
depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching early Holocene or Late Pleistocene alluvial
sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the
project area or within a 1 mile radius.
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the Sobrato Project
disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene
periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the
development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during
development should be observed.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at
dradford@westerncentermuseum.org
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
APPENDIX E
PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
Photo 1: KIM2118-H-1 Utility Pole Overview (View SN)
Photo 2: KIM2118-H-1 Date Nail Dated 1945 (View NNE)
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
Photo 3: Project Overview (View SW)
Photo 4: Project Overview (View N)
N O VEM B ER 30, 2 02 1 BCR C O N SU LTIN G LLC C U LT U R A L R ESO U R C ES A SSESSM ENT SO B R A T O PR O JEC T
Photo 5: Project Site Overview from NW Corner (View ESE)
Photo 6: Project Site Overview from Near center (View S)
APPENDIX E2
CULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL DUE
DILIGENCE LETTER
May 27, 2021
Randall Schroeder
Lennar Homes of CA, Inc.
Inland Empire Division
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 302
Corona, California 92879
Subject: Results of a Cultural and Biological Resources Due Diligence Study for the Sobrato
Project, APNs 1108-052-01 through -17, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a due diligence cultural and
biological resources review of the proposed Sobrato Project which includes Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (APNs) 1108-052-01 through -17. This project consists of a proposed residential
subdivision of 12.5 acres and associated off-site improvements. The subject property is located
southwest of the intersection of Lytle Creek Road and Sierra Lakes Parkway, within the city of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California and can be found within Section 25, Township 1
North, Ranch 6 West as shown on the United States Geological Survey Devore, California 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangle map. This due diligence study focused upon the potential of the
property to contain significant archaeological, historical, paleontological, and/or biological
resources that could represent a constraint to its development. The scope of work for this
assessment included:
1) A review of previous cultural resources studies for the project;
2)A review of existing records regarding recorded archaeological sites and fossil
localities within and adjacent to the property;
3)A Sacred Lands File (SLF) review conducted by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC);
4) An intuitive survey of the property to search for any significant cultural resources;
5)A paleontological records review and assessment of the potential for fossils within and
adjacent to the property;
6)A biological assessment for this project; and
7)Preparation of this letter report to summarize the results of the study and present an
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 2
opinion regarding the potential constraints associated with cultural and biological
resources during the development of the project.
Cultural Resources
The assessment of the potential constraints associated with archaeological or
paleontological resources within the Sobrato Project are presented in four categories: research of
existing records, assessment of property conditions, review of current conditions, and
recommendations. Fortunately for this study, a sufficient quantity of data is available to permit a
strong assessment of the property’s potential to contain significant archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Review of Available Archaeological Records Data
BFSA requested an archaeological records search from the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at the California State University at Fullerton. However, due to the
limitations imposed by the evolving circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, records
search access has become limited, and as of the date of this report, the records search has not yet
been completed by the SCCIC. However, given the high frequency of development in the area, it
is likely that much of the area surrounding the project has been studied.
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
BFSA requested a SLF search to be conducted by the NAHC for the project to determine
if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance
are present within or near the project. However, as of the date of this study, no response has been
received.
Results of the Archaeological Field Survey
On May 21, 2021, BFSA archaeologist Bud Hoff conducted an intuitive survey to
determine if any locations of historic or prehistoric resources or potential use areas were present.
The parcel can be characterized as flat terrain that is covered in recently cut weeds and grasses.
Ground surface visibility was moderate due to the coverage of the weeds and grasses. Historic
aerial photographs indicate that the property remained vacant through 1938. Between 1938 and
1959 the parcel was sub-divided and three single family residences were constructed. Also, by
1959, portions of three additional single-family properties were present along the south border of
the property. Another single-family residence was constructed in the project area by 1966.
Between 1980 and 1994, one of the residences was removed from the parcel, and by 2005, the
project area was vacant. The survey conducted by BFSA did not reveal the presence of any
archaeological sites, artifacts, or other potential cultural resources.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 3
Results of the Paleontological Assessment
The Sobrato Project is underlain by late Quaternary (Holocene) young alluvial fan deposits
consisting of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, coarse-grained sand to bouldery alluvial-
fan deposits having slightly to moderately dissected surfaces. Alluvial fan deposits typically have
high coarse-to-fine clast ratios. Younger surficial units have upper surfaces that are capped by
slight to moderately developed pedogenic-soil profiles (Morton and Matti 2001).
Young alluvial fan deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least
in the uppermost layers, but they may contain pockets of finer-grained sediments, particularly at
depth, that may contain significant vertebrate fossil remains. The fossilized remains that might be
expected would be the bones of late Pleistocene-age mammals such as horses, camels, or
mammoths, or small vertebrates such as reptiles and rodents.
While shallow excavations in the young alluvial fan deposits are unlikely to encounter
significant vertebrate fossils, deeper excavations within the project area that extend down into
older, finer-grained Quaternary deposits may encounter significant remains of fossil vertebrates.
Therefore, any substantial excavations in the proposed project area should be monitored to recover
any fossil remains. A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) is warranted to reduce
impacts to potential paleontological resources to a level below significant.
Biological Resources
Review of Available Biological Resources Records Data
Existing biological resource conditions within and adjacent to the Sobrato Project were
initially investigated through review of pertinent scientific literature. Federal register listings,
protocols, and species data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
were reviewed in conjunction with federally listed species potentially occurring in the area of the
subject property. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Heritage Division species account database, was also
reviewed for all pertinent information regarding the locations of known occurrences of sensitive
species in the vicinity of the property (CDFW 2021a). In addition, numerous regional floral and
faunal field guides were utilized in the identification of species and suitable habitats. Combined,
the sources reviewed provided an excellent baseline from which to assess the biological resources
potentially occurring in the area. Other sources of information included the review of unpublished
biological resource letter reports, jurisdictional delineations, permit applications, and assessments.
Other CDFW reports and publications consulted include the following:
• Special Animals (CDFW 2021b)
• State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW
2021c)
• Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2021d)
• Special Vascular Plants and Bryophytes List (CDFW 2021e)
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 4
A reconnaissance survey of the project was conducted by Ruben Ramirez, from Cadre
Environmental, on May 18, 2021 (USFWS Permit 780566-14, CDFW Permit 02243) in order to
characterize and identify potential wildlife habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data
identified in the literature search and previous surveys. Geologic and soil maps were examined to
identify local soil types that may support sensitive taxa. Aerial photographs, topographic maps,
and vegetation and rare plant maps prepared by previous studies in the region were used to
determine community types and other physical features that may support sensitive plants, wildlife,
uncommon taxa, or rare communities that occur within the project.
Based upon the initial review of the USFWS and CNDDB databases, habitat assessments
were conducted for the following species:
• Sensitive plants
• Delhi sand flower-loving fly – Federally Endangered
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – California State Species of Special Concern
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) – Federally Endangered /
California State Species of Special Concern
• Protected (“Heritage”) trees (as defined in City of Fontana Municipal Code Ordinance
No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94)
Results of the Field Survey
The project is bordered by high-density and rural existing residential development, high
traffic roads, and the County of San Bernardino County Flood Control channel/State Route 210 to
the south. Based upon a review of historic aerial photographs, the project parcel has been mowed
annually.
Habitat on the project is characterized primarily as non-native grassland/ruderal vegetation
and is dominated by wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), puncture vine
(Tribulus terrestris), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), red-
stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), black mustard
(Brassica nigra), Russian thistle (Kali tragus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and common
fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii).
The entire project is characterized as having Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent
slopes (TvC) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2021).
Results of the Biological Assessment
The Sobrato Project is not located within or adjacent to the North Fontana Conservation
Program area (Michael Baker International 2016). Therefore, implementation of the project would
not result in a conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, no impacts
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
1. Sensitive Habitats: No sensitive or undisturbed habitats were documented within or
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 5
adjacent to the project. No proposed actions are needed.
2. Sensitive Plants: No suitable habitat for sensitive floral species, including those listed
as federal or state threatened/endangered, was documented within or adjacent to the
project. No proposed actions are needed.
3. Sensitive Wildlife: No suitable habitat for wildlife species listed as federal or state
threatened/endangered was documented within or adjacent to the project.
The project is located within the County of San Bernardino Biotic Resources Overlay
Map (2012) for the burrowing owl and suitable foraging habitat was documented on
site. No potential burrows or characteristic sign including white-wash, feathers, tracks,
or pellets was detected onsite.
Proposed actions include:
a. Prior to initial grading or clearing of areas of suitable habitat (e.g., a vacant site
with a landscape of grassland or low-growing, arid scrub vegetation or
agricultural use or vegetation), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-
construction survey, in accordance with the 2012 California Department of Fish
and Game (now CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, to
determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls within the proposed area
of impact. Specifically, two pre-construction clearance surveys should be
conducted 14 to 30 days and 24 hours, respectively, prior to any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities. Documentation of findings shall be
submitted to the City of Fontana for review and approval. If no burrowing owls
or occupied burrows are detected, construction may begin. If an occupied
burrow is found within the development footprint during pre-construction
clearance surveys, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan would need
to be prepared and submitted to the CDFW for approval prior to initiating
project activities.
4. USFWS Critical Habitat: The project is not located within or adjacent to a designated
plant or wildlife critical habitat boundary. No proposed actions are needed.
5. California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513:
The non-native grassland/ruderal habitat documented within the Project Site represents
potentially nesting habitat for ground nesting birds protected by California Department
of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. The loss of an active nest
would be considered a potentially significant impact. Standard required compliance
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 6
with the CDFW Codes will ensure potential impacts to nesting birds are reduced to a
level below significant.
Proposed actions include:
a. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the California Department
of Fish and Game Code Codes 3503 & 3513 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
clearing should occur between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for birds
(generally, September 1 to January 31). If this avoidance schedule is not
feasible, the alternative is to carry out such activities under the supervision of a
qualified biologist. This shall entail the following:
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird
survey no more than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance
activities. The survey will consist of full coverage of the proposed
disturbance limits and up to a 500-foot buffer area, determined by the
biologist and taking into account the species nesting in the area and the
habitat present.
If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.
2. If “occupied” nests are found, their locations shall be mapped, species
documented, and, to the degree feasible, the status of the nest (e.g.,
incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging) recorded. The
biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest.
The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species
present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities
proposed in the area. No construction or ground disturbance activities
shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined
the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor
that activities may resume.
6. Jurisdictional Wetland & Regulated Resources: No wetlands or jurisdictional
resources regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, or Regional
Water Quality Control Board were documented within or immediately adjacent to the
project. No proposed actions are needed.
Conclusion
The review of current property conditions and historic aerial imagery has provided
sufficient information to form an opinion regarding the cultural and paleontological constraints, as
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 7
well as the likely biological and regulatory constraints to the development of the property. The
following points are salient to the evaluation of potential constraints:
• Historic aerial photographs indicated that the project area was developed as early as
1959 and the parcel was completely disturbed by 2005.
• The archaeological survey of the property did not identify any historic or prehistoric
sites, features, or artifacts.
• The paleontological assessment indicates that the property is unlikely to contain fossils
at shallow depths, although the potential increases with depth of soil.
• Specific biological constraints and recommendations include conducting
preconstruction burrowing owl and nesting bird surveys.
Because the archaeological records search results have not yet been received from the
SCCIC, it is unclear if previously recorded cultural resources are present in the project area that
were not identified by BFSA during the recent survey. It is possible, given the moderate ground
surface visibility of the parcel, that unidentified cultural resources are present within the project.
Native American issues are anticipated to be relatively minor for this project, given the likely
absence of any archaeological sites on the parcel. Local tribes will likely request Native American
monitoring to protect any sensitive tribal resources that may be present. This situation is very
common in this area, and the only constraint to the development of the property associated with
Native American tribes would be the cost of Native American monitoring during grading.
A MMRP that addresses both archaeological and paleontological resources will likely be
required during all grading activities by the City of Fontana. Generally, this requires the presence
of a full-time archaeological and/or paleontological monitor during all grading activities. If
cultural or paleontological resources are identified during grading, work would stop in the vicinity
of the find until the material can be assessed and recorded by the archaeologist or paleontologist.
If the find is prehistoric in nature, a Native American representative would also be called to assess
the find. It is also possible that the City of Fontana will require the presence of a Native American
monitor(s) during all grading activities. Following the completion of grading, a reporting program
would be completed to address the presence or absence of cultural materials within the Sobrato
Project. The requirement for a mitigation monitoring program by the City as part of a grading
permit is not considered a significant constraint to development plans. Costs associated with
mitigation monitoring are anticipated to be typical for such projects.
Biological constraints could be a minor financial consideration but also do not appear to
be a major constraint to development. The project requires standard preconstruction surveys for
burrowing owls and nesting birds. Furthermore, no critical habitat or sensitive plant or wildlife
species were identified within the project.
It would appear that the only constraint to development is associated with the costs for the
biological preconstruction surveys, cultural resources monitoring, and Native American tribal
monitoring. In the unlikely event that burrowing owls are identified on the property prior to
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. — Page 8
grading, additional costs could be added to the project to protect or relocate the owls.
If you have any questions or wish further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Brian F. Smith
BFS:jc