HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D - Phase I - Cultural Resources AssessmentA PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT FOR THE
CONIFER COURT STORAGE PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0237-411-28 and -29
Prepared on Behalf of:
Conifer Court, LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared for:
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
August 13, 2024
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
i
Archaeological Report Summary Information
Authors: Kathleen Krogh, B.A., and Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA
Prepared by: BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Report Date: August 12, 2024
Report Title: A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court
Storage Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California
Prepared on Behalf of: Conifer Court, LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared for: City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 0237-411-28 and -29
USGS Quadrangle: Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 6 West, San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, as shown on Fontana, California USGS
Quadrangle
Study Area: 13.16 acres
Key Words: Archaeological survey; 13.16 acres; positive results; historic
trash scatter; Site Temp-1 and Site Temp-2 evaluated as not
CRHR eligible; city of Fontana; Fontana, California USGS
topographic quadrangle; monitoring of grading recommended.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
ii
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ............................................................1.0–1
1.1 Purpose of Investigation ....................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Major Findings ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Recommendation Summary ...............................................................................1.0–2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................2.0–1
2.1 Previous Work ...................................................................................................2.0–1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................2.0–5
2.3 Cultural Setting ..................................................................................................2.0–6
2.4 Research Goals ...................................................................................................2.0–18
3.0 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Archaeological Records Search .........................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Field Methodology .............................................................................................3.0–1
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation ..................................................................3.0–1
3.4 Native American Consultation ...........................................................................3.0–1
3.5 Applicable Regulations ......................................................................................3.0–2
3.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................3.0–2
4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................4.0–1
4.1 Records Search Results ......................................................................................4.0–1
4.2 Results of the Field Survey ................................................................................4.0–2
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................5.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................6.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................7.0–1
Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Site Record Forms*
Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
Appendix E – Confidential Maps*
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 2.0–1 General Location Map .................................................................................2.0–2
Figure 2.0–2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................2.0–3
Figure 2.0–3 Project Development Map ...........................................................................2.0–4
Figure 4.2–1 Cultural Resource Location Map* ...............................................................4.0–6
Figure 4.2–2 Cultural Resource Locations Shown on Current Aerial Photograph* .........4.0–7
Figure 5.0–1 Sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 Shown on the Project Development Map* .......5.0–2
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix
List of Plates
Plate Page
Plate 2.3–1 Declez Quarry circa 1905 ............................................................................2.0–17
Plate 4.2–1 Overview of the western portion of the project, facing south ......................4.0–3
Plate 4.2–2 Overview of the northern portion of the project, facing north .....................4.0–4
Plate 4.2–3 Overview of the eastern portion of the project, facing southeast ................4.0–4
Plate 4.2–4 Overview of the northern portion of the project, facing south ....................4.0–5
Plate 4.2–5 Overview of Site Temp-1, facing east .........................................................4.0–8
Plate 4.2–6 Bottles identified at Site Temp-1, facing east ..............................................4.0–9
Plate 4.2–7 Overview of Site Temp-2, facing northwest ................................................4.0–10
Plate 4.2–8 1960s Gallo Flavor Guard bottle identified at Site Temp-2 ........................4.0–11
Plate 4.2–9 1967 Anchor Hocking bottle fragment identified at Site Temp-2 ...............4.0–11
Plate 4.2–10 1964 bottle fragment identified at Site Temp-2 ...........................................4.0–11
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 4.1–1 Cultural Resources Located Within a Half Mile of the Proposed Project ...4.0–1
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
1.0–1
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
The following report describes the results of the cultural resources survey conducted by
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the Conifer Court Storage
Project, a 13.16-acre property located southeast of Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive in the city
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. As proposed, the project includes the clearing of
the property for the construction of a storage unit facility with associated landscape, hardscape,
and infrastructure. The project includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs 0237-411-28 and -29)
which can be found within Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 6 West of the San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian, as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fontana, California (7.5-
minute) topographic quadrangle map. BFSA conducted this assessment to locate and record any
cultural resources identified within the project in compliance with California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) regulatory requirements and City of Fontana environmental requirements.
1.1 Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of this investigation was to determine if any cultural resources would be
affected by the proposed land development. This study consisted of the processing of a records
search of previously recorded archaeological sites on or near the subject property, and the
completion of an archaeological survey of the project. The archaeological records search
identified nine resources within a half-mile radius of the current project area, none of which are
recorded within the subject property. Of the previously recorded resources, six are historic and
three are prehistoric. The records search results also identified 22 previous studies conducted
within a half-mile radius of the project, four of which overlapped the subject property (Schroth
1981; Drummy-Chapel 1981a, 1981b; Encarnacion et al. 2008). None of the studies identified any
resources within the subject property. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) was contacted for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search.
1.2 Major Findings
The records search results and a review of historic maps and aerial photographs show that
the project property was part of the Declez Quarry (also Declezville Quarry) and has been impacted
by mining activities since the late nineteenth century. During the survey, conditions and ground
visibility were classified as poor to moderate, with visibility hindered at times by vegetation, spoil
piles, and rubble. Noted impacts to the property included several dirt access roads and various
spoil piles containing soil, blasted rock, boulders, building materials, modern trash, and other
imported materials. The survey did not result in the identification of any prehistoric resources
within the property. However, two concentrations of historic trash were identified within the
southwest and southeast portions of the property, respectively, and were recorded as sites Temp-1
and Temp-2. The contexts of sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 indicate that these sites are secondary
deposits intermixed in soil that appears to have come from outside of the project area. As such,
neither resource maintains integrity and, therefore, neither site is considered eligible for the
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
1.0–2
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
1.3 Recommendation Summary
Sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 are not considered eligible for the CRHR as a result of prior
impacts to the sites. In addition, these deposits appear to be related to secondary dumping behavior
rather than directly deposited from the historic use of the property. However, the presence of sites
Temp-1 and Temp-2 within the property, the limited visibility during the survey, and the records
search results indicate that there still remains a potential for the inadvertent discovery of
archaeological resources during grading. Therefore, it is recommended that the project be
conditioned with archaeological monitoring during grading of the subject property. A copy of this
report will be permanently filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University at Fullerton (CSU Fullerton). All notes, photographs, and other
materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway,
California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
BFSA was retained by the applicant to conduct a cultural resources survey for the Conifer
Court Storage Project. The archaeological survey was conducted in order to comply with CEQA
regulatory requirements and City of Fontana environmental requirements. The project is located
in an area of moderate cultural resource sensitivity, as suggested by the known site density.
Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns,
which, in San Bernardino County, are focused around environments with accessible food and
water.
The proposed project (APNs 0237-411-28 and -29) is located southeast of Live Oak
Avenue and Village Drive in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 2.0–
1). The subject property is situated within Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 6 West of the
San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as shown on the USGS Fontana, California (7.5-minute)
topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2.0–2). As designed, the project proposes to develop the
approximately 13.16-acre property as a storage unit facility with associated landscape, hardscape,
and infrastructure (Figure 2.0–3).
Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA, directed the cultural resources study
for the project. Field archaeologist Mary Chitjian conducted the pedestrian survey of the project
on July 26, 2024. The survey was conducted in 15-meter transect intervals and visibility of the
natural ground surface was classified as poor to moderate. Kathleen Krogh and Project
Archaeologist Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA, prepared the technical report. Emily T. Soong
created the report graphics and Caitlin A.M. Foote conducted technical editing and report
production. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
2.1 Previous Work
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a half-
mile radius was conducted by BFSA at the SCCIC located at CSU Fullerton (Appendix C). The
search identified nine resources within a half-mile radius of the current project, none of which are
recorded within the subject property. The records search results also identified 22 previous studies
conducted within a half-mile radius of the project, four of which overlapped the subject property
(Schroth 1981; Drummy-Chapel 1981a, 1981b; Encarnacion et al. 2008). The Schroth 1981,
Drummy-Chapel 1981a, and 1981b studies included the entirety of the subject property as part of
a larger survey for the Southridge Village Project and did not identify any resources within the
subject property. The Encarnacion et al. (2008) study conducted a survey that included the dirt
road running parallel to the northern project boundary and minimally overlapped the eastern
portion of the property. Encarnacion et al. (2008) did not identify any resources within the subject
property.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–5
2.2 Project Setting
The Conifer Court Storage Project is located in southwest San Bernardino County, within
the limits of the city of Fontana, southeast of the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Village
Drive. The project is located at the foot of the northwestern corner of the Jurupa Mountains. The
Jurupa Mountains are a part of the Perris tectonic block and constitute the northern-most portion
of the Peninsular Ranges (MacKevett 1951; Morton 2003). The Jurupa Mountains mainly consist
of Cretaceous granitic and pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks, with the lower slopes mantled by a
sedimentary detritus of Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan deposits.
The elevation of the subject property ranges from approximately 970 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL) along the southern boundary to approximately 930 feet AMSL at the northern
boundary. The promontory just south of the project is composed of tonalite, a type of granitic
rock, and was the setting of the former Declez Quarry. Situated near the former community of
Declezville, the quarry was the site of the extensive extraction of tonalite for building purposes,
mostly for projects in Los Angeles County, and included a rail line to transport the tonalite.
The Declez Quarry ceased production in 1950; however, the subject property has been
impacted by previous quarrying activities (MacKevett 1951). The northern portion of the project
is mapped as artificial, undocumented fill deposits containing stockpiles of soil, building materials,
and boulders of varying size (MacKevett 1951; Morton 2003; Lump and Walker 2022). Although
Lump and Walker (2022) postulated some of this material is likely associated with tailings from
the past quarry operations, the amount of material left on the property from the past quarrying
activities is inconclusive and “[m]ost of the surface piles of boulders, concrete rubble, and to a
lesser extent asphalt, appear to have been dumped well after quarry activity” (Lump and Walker
2022).
The eastern portion of the subject property consists of undisturbed alluvium deposited at
the outlet of a natural drainage (Lump and Walker 2022). This area of the property is mapped as
Holocene and late Pleistocene (present day to approximately 120,000 years ago [Cohen and
Gibbard 2011]) young alluvial fan deposits of the Lytle Creek fan. The specific soil types found
within the property are mapped as Cieneba sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes (CnD) and Cieneba-
Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, MLRA 20 (Cr) (NRCS 2024).
Vegetation found within the property consists primarily of non-native weeds and grasses
interrupted by pockets of chapparal community plants. During the prehistoric period, vegetation
near the project provided sufficient food resources to support prehistoric human occupants.
Animals that inhabited the project during prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits,
squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians.
The natural setting of the project during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional
resource base. Fresh water was likely obtainable from seasonal drainages near the property.
Historically, the property likely contained the same plant and animal species that are present today.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–6
2.3 Cultural Setting
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean
groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following
discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex,
the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex,
and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe
archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern
area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According
to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga
east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino
Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has
been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it
would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this
discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area
into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early
Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene
(3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP)
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to
10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for
glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands
(Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer,
which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and
evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984;
Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the
particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west
than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains,
marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized
hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds,
mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss
and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9000 to 1300 YBP)
The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene circa 9,000 YBP.
The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–7
warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In
southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by
cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at
8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one
to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the
coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines
were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely
discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and
estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea
levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).
At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons
filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters
1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes
surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the
lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects upon the types of resources available to
prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten,
but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).
The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water,
and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland
to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants,
including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures,
complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling
Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.
Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790)
Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region
moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition into the Late Prehistoric Period. This
period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political,
and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with
the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of
more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments
during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and
the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the
Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade
networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–8
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day
Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso
Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River,
the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of
the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including
Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island,
this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern
California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as
the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied
at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were
comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller
family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of
primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak
groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in
sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the
locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and
included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern
elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species,
purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland
resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare,
rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been
at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family;
2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established
lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were
politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain
seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to
exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed
status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion,
leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s)
under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was
legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–9
the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting
healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and
collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of
powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean
and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other
groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making
baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses
varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-
covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures
included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near
the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore
deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact)
cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain,
yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment
or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and
Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other
tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell
flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and
wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were
fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets
were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial
items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina
Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual
objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since
it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber
1976).
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to
Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their
sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–10
The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying
definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the
lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically
united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were,
one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal
holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and
at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to
the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the
Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.
The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two
exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are
unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon
“economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California”
(Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with
Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large,
autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from
a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after
marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those
ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).
According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano
are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:
There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local
group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death,
supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-
access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales
relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster-
transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and
Smith 1978b)
The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were
induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer,
using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).
Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family
dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take
place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–11
roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband,
wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or
widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the
mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader
would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and
sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).
The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality.
Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and
piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots,
bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small
rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also
hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed
with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often
during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used
to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to
a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food
acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or
bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either
stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).
The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured
goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew-
backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull-
roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches,
cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).
Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta
California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the
intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the
knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey
(San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel
(Los Angeles County), who began colonization the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California
was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given
permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from
Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through what is
now Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman
1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de
Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–12
southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between
San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the
establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American
workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became more vulnerable to
theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland
to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet
their needs, the Spaniards embarked on a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations
within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of
Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla
rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name
from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama
rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente
(circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These
efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established
a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The
indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to
work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations
were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social
conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California were classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly
thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin
to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the
establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and were
considered highly valuable as a result. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered
expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan
Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located
in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963).
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the
Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos,
most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans
had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native
Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve
suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–13
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed
for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you
… to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their
intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the
regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely
upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the
Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the
way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States
ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while
integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native
Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources,
and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook
1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war
(Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put
into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once
California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines,
business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969;
Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27
separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was
primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada
mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry established
during the earlier rancho period.
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County,
including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their
ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto
Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing
provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the
promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its
first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion
of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental
Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx
brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–14
General History of the City of Fontana
According to the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015–2035 (City of Fontana 2018a),
the history of the city is primarily divided into four periods or “contexts” identified as “The Four
Fontanas.” The four periods are “Rural Pioneer Community: 1850 to 1906; Fontana Farms: 1906
to 1942; Steeltown: 1942 to 1983; and Suburban Bedroom Community: 1983 to 2006” (City of
Fontana 2018a).
Rural Pioneer Community: 1850 to 1906
In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, co-founder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber
dealer based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington
Libraries, Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as
part of the Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired
other properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire,
including almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017).
Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and
settlers of the lands surrounding his Fontana-area property. As a result of the water rights conflict,
in which the United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water
Company was formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to:
[U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These
latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and
using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the
settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long
and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them,
quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to
control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic
Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have
quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888)
The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the
company platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company
had acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing
the channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888).
In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana
Development Company purchased Rosena, and by 1905 had begun the building of a farming
complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a
company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–15
Fontana Farms: 1906 to 1942
By 1906, Miller had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water
Company assets and created the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company.
Afterward, Miller oversaw the construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from
Lytle Creek, as well as the planting of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Conford
1995).
In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe
railroad tracks. Much of the land to the south of the townsite was utilized as a hog farm, while the
remainder of the Fontana Farms Company land was subdivided into small farms. The smaller
“starter farms” were approximately 2.5 acres and the new owner was able to choose between
grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery. “By 1930 the Fontana
Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time
settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Conford 1995).
Steeltown: 1942 to 1983
Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers
of steel west of the Mississippi River. The Kaiser Steel Mill was built in response to the United
States government’s need for a steel mill and factory on the west coast to construct ships and
airplanes following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Sturm et al. 1995). Following World
War II, the mill shifted production to can manufacturing, tin plating, and pipe milling (Sturm et al.
1995). To provide for his workers’ health needs, Henry J. Kaiser constructed the Fontana Kaiser
Permanente medical facility, which is now the largest managed care organization in the United
States.
The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952, and the Kaiser Steel Mill continued
to expand through the 1950s and 1960s. In addition to health care, Kaiser created Kaiser
Community Homes to address the burgeoning housing needs of post-war America. Within
Fontana and neighboring Ontario, Kaiser Community Homes provided affordable residential
neighborhoods and housing subdivisions to meet the steel mill workers’ housing needs (City of
Fontana 2018a). “Kaiser Steel also worked with the United Steelworkers of America to develop
an innovative profit-sharing plan in which labor shared in cost savings resulting from technology
and labor productivity improvements” (City of Fontana 2018a). By the late 1970s, the Kaiser Steel
Mill had begun to experience a massive downturn in production, which resulted in a 3,000-person
layoff (Sturm et al. 1995).
Kaiser and their contributions to Fontana and the nation during the mid-twentieth century
can be viewed in the context of the “Post-War Building Boom of 1945–1970” (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012). Kaiser Steel was important to the
expansion of development during this period, supplying steel for the construction of buildings
throughout the region and nation. However, the mill ultimately closed its doors and ceased
production in 1983. In 1984, California Steel Industries (CSI) purchased the southern 380 acres
of the 480-acre property and portions of the factory were reopened. A 1995 archaeological survey
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–16
by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) indicates that the property to the north that was not purchased by
CSI had been demolished by Hollywood movie explosions throughout the 1980s (Sturm et al.
1995). In the late 1990s, construction of the California Speedway resulted in further damage to
original steel mill property (McLean and Monk 1997).
Suburban Bedroom Community: 1983 to 2006
With the closing of the steel mill in 1983, residential development became the primary
driving factor for economic growth in the Fontana (City of Fontana 2018b). Between 1980 and
1987, Fontana’s population doubled from 35,000 to 70,000, assisted by the Fontana
Redevelopment Agency, who provided incentives for housing developers to build within the city
(City of Fontana 2018b; Conford 1995). Residential development continued to grow through the
1990s; however, commercial activities in the downtown area declined as new commercial
developments near freeways and the new residential areas pulled shopping away from the historic
downtown core (City of Fontana 2018b). More recently, the city has since become a transportation
hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic 2005; City of
Fontana 2018a).
General History of the Declezville
Although tied to the history of Fontana, the project is situated within an area historically
known as Declezville. The subject property is situated within portions of the Declez Quarry.
William Declez was originally from France; however, by 1875, he owned large swaths of land in
the region, including the subject property. Declez established a quarry in the Jurupa Mountains,
which included a portion of the Jurupa Mountains primarily in the southern part of the subject
property. As such, the surrounding area was named after Declez (Drummy-Chapel 1981a).
Two areas were named for Declez. One location was situated just west of San Sevaine,
around the current intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Washington Street, which included a
Southern Pacific Railroad stop. The second location was to the south and included the quarry and
a small population of workers which became known as Declezville, although at times it was also
referred to as South Fontana (Anicic 2005). The Declezville community supported a population
of 300 and included a post office, a bunkhouse for laborers, a cookhouse, dining hall, and foreman
quarters, amongst other facilities (Drummy-Chapel 1981a). Water for the population was supplied
by a well dug north of the town and the well was also used for a steam powered mining drill
(Drummy-Chapel 1981a).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–17
In 1876, Declez opened a second quarry within the same area, and the Southern Pacific
Railroad laid spur tracks southward from the Declez Quarry along the current alignment of Live
Oak Avenue to Declezville. These tracks originally bypassed the subject property; however, they
were later extended into the property, as shown by topographic maps. This is likely because
Declez’s original quarry was located southwest of the project, while the quarry location closest to
the current project was primarily utilized after the Southern Pacific Railroad took control of
operations in 1911 and 1912 (San Bernardino County Sun 1961). Regardless, all of the tracks
within or near the property have since been removed. The Declez quarries produced tonalite, a
granitic material. Anicic notes that the quarry was very successful as “[o]ne of the earliest Los
Angeles skyscrapers, the Brison block at 3rd and Spring, was of the quarry rock found in Declez”
(Anicic 2005). In addition, the quarry supplied stone for buildings throughout the state, as far
north as San Francisco, in addition to the San Pedro breakwater, the Long Beach breakwater, and
the Santa Monica Wharf (Anicic 2005; San Bernardino County Sun 1961; Drummy-Chapel
1981a). Other quarries also operated in the area, and just southwest of the Declez Quarry was
another quarry owned by the West Riverside Granite Company that produced similar material
(Ballester and Morales 2019).
Again, around 1911 and 1912, the Southern Pacific Railroad took control of the Declez
Quarry and continued to run it for a number of years (Anicic 2005; San Bernardino County Sun
1961; Drummy-Chapel 1981a). In 1922, it was reported that the quarry, although owned by the
Southern Pacific Railroad, was being operated by the Russell-Foel Co. to supply riprap stone
(Department of the Interior 1925). Apparently, the quarry was not used much after 1915 until
massive flooding in 1938 caused damage to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Colton Yard and
Plate 2.3–1: Declez Quarry circa 1905.
(Photograph courtesy of the California State Mining Bureau)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–18
Stone, and the quarry was needed for repairs (San Bernardino County Sun 1961).
The Declez area was also known for vineyards and wine making. One of the vineyards in
the Declez region included land originally owned by Frank La Vesu (San Bernardino County Sun
1961). Frank La Vesu came to the area in 1875 and had a vineyard in the area that flourished
between 1875 and 1900. La Vesu’s property included a house, winery, barn, and windmill
(Drummy-Chapel 1981a). The main operation of La Vesu’s winery was situated north of the
subject property, near the corner of Jurupa Avenue and Live Oak Avenue (Anicic 2005). In
addition to La Vesu, the Pagliuso family, originally from Maione, Italy, also had vineyards in the
area. Declez deeded land to Guiseppi and Felice Pagliuso in exchange for them clearing land. The
Pagliusos also worked in the quarry (San Bernardino County Sun 1971).
The quarry ceased production in 1950 (MacKevett 1951; San Bernardino County Sun
1961). By 1967, a portion of Declezville just southwest of the current project was listed on the
USGS Fontana, California Quadrangle as the Fontana Bird Park. Drummy-Chapel (1981a) listed
the bird park as the “Fontana Bird Farm,” located at 11730 Live Oak Avenue. The bird park
opened around 1961 and was owned by Michael Thomas of Venice (San Bernardino County Sun
1961, 1971; Drummy-Chapel 1981a). The Fontana Bird Farm was a destination for local children
to go on field trips (San Bernardino County Sun 1961, 1966). It is not clear if any other animals
were also housed at the park, but in 1976, proposals were put forth to the Fontana City Planning
Commission to allow a bear, cougar, leopard, and other wild animals be housed at the park (San
Bernardino County Sun 1976). Between 1985 and 1994, much of the bird park was improved into
what is now Southridge Park with sports fields, tennis courts, and other improvements.
2.4 Research Goals
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which
humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in
the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under
investigation is the southwest portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the
archaeological program conducted for the Conifer Court Storage Project included an intensive
pedestrian survey of the entire 13.16-acre project. Given the area involved and the narrow focus
of the cultural resources study, the research design for this project was necessarily limited and
general in nature. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and
potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories
regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance
of the identified resources. Although survey-level investigations are limited in terms of the amount
of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to
guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research
questions take into account the size and location of the project discussed above.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
2.0–19
Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or
individual?
• Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined
from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site
function? What resources were exploited?
• How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted
in the area?
• How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley
environments of the region?
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of
changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The
overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area
occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an
archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research
were undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project;
2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and
chronological placement of each cultural resource identified;
3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and
4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources
identified.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
3.0–1
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The archaeological program for the Conifer Court Storage Project consisted of an
institutional records search, a SLF search, an intensive pedestrian survey of the 13.16-acre project,
and the preparation of a technical study. This study was conducted in conformance with Section
21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA. Statutory requirements of
CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources.
Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by
the State Historic Preservation Office (1995).
3.1 Archaeological Records Search
BFSA conducted an archaeological records search at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. A
detailed discussion of the records search results is presented within Section 4.1 and the complete
records search results are provided in Appendix C. BFSA also reviewed the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) index, historic USGS data, and aerial photographs (1933 through 2024).
In addition, the BFSA research library was consulted for any relevant historical information.
3.2 Field Methodology
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard
archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the
project. An intensive pedestrian reconnaissance was conducted that employed a series of parallel
survey transects spaced at 15-meter intervals to locate archaeological sites within the project. The
archaeological survey of the project was conducted on July 26, 2024. The entire project was
covered by the survey process and photographs were taken to document project conditions during
the survey (see Section 4.2).
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation
This report contains information regarding previous studies, statutory requirements for the
project, a brief description of the setting, research methods employed, and the overall results of
the survey. The report includes all appropriate illustrations and tabular information needed to
make a complete and comprehensive presentation of these activities, including the methodologies
employed and the personnel involved. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the
SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. Any newly recorded sites, or sites requiring updated information, will
be recorded on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site forms, which will
be filed with the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton
3.4 Native American Consultation
BFSA requested a review of the SLF by the NAHC to determine if any recorded Native
American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within one
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
3.0–2
mile of the project. The SLF search request has not yet been received. All correspondence is
provided in Appendix D.
3.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino
County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Criteria outlined in CEQA
provide the guidance for making such a determination. Provided below are the CEQA criteria that
a resource must meet in order to be determined important.
3.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission for listing in, the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR
[California Code of Regulations]. Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey
meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be
historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as
significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically
or culturally significant.
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military,
or cultural annals of California, may be considered to be an historical resource,
provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light
of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to
be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR
(PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
3.0–3
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR,
or not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k]
of the PRC), or not identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in
Section 5024.1[g] of the PRC), does not preclude a lead agency from determining that
the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or
5024.1.
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource 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.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) 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 CRHR; or
b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in 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,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance
and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the
following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine
whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall
refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC and Section 15126.4 of the
guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
3.0–4
3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time
and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2 (c to f) do not apply to surveys
and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location
contains unique archaeological resources.
4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource,
the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant
effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect
upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared
to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the
CEQA process.
Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC
SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American
burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action
implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains
from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5).
2) The requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–1
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Records Search Results
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a half-
mile radius was conducted by BFSA using records obtained from the SCCIC (Appendix C). The
archaeological records search results identified nine resources within a half-mile radius of the
proposed project area, none of which are recorded within the subject property. Of the previously
recorded resources, six are historic and three are prehistoric. The historic sites consist of the
Declez Ranch, SPRR Declezville Spur, the Etiwanda-San Bernardino 220 kV Transmission Line,
the Mira Loma 230 kV Transmission Line (recorded under two separate numbers), and a sewage
treatment plant. The prehistoric resources consist of three isolates. Table 4.1–1 provides
descriptions of all resources identified during the records search.
Table 4.1–1
Cultural Resources Located Within a Half Mile of the Proposed Project
Site(s) Description
SBR-4584H Historic Declez Ranch
SBR-7426H Historic SPRR Declezville Spur
SBR-17,228H Historic Etiwanda-San Bernardino 220 kV
Transmission Line
SBR-17,229H
(Subsumed by P-36-026501) Historic Mira Loma 230 kV Transmission Line
SBR-29,467H Historic sewage treatment plant
P-36-060216, P-36-060217, and P-36-060221 Prehistoric isolate
The records search results also identified 22 previous studies conducted within a half-mile
radius of the project, four of which overlapped the subject property (Schroth 1981; Drummy-
Chapel 1981a, 1981b; Encarnacion et al. 2008). The Schroth 1981, Drummy-Chapel 1981a, and
1981b studies included the entirety of the subject property as part of a larger survey for the
Southridge Village Project and did not identify any resources within the subject property. The
Encarnacion et al. (2008) study conducted a survey that included the dirt road running parallel to
the northern project boundary and minimally overlapped the eastern portion of the property.
Encarnacion et al. (2008) did not identify any resources within the subject property.
BFSA also reviewed the following sources to help facilitate a better understanding of the
historic use of the property:
• The NRHP Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory
• Historic USGS maps for the San Bernardino, California (15-minute) topographic
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–2
quadrangle (1896, 1898, 1901, 1942, and 1954), and the Fontana, California (7.5-
minute) topographic quadrangle (1943, 1953, and 1967)
• Historic aerial photographs (1933 through 2024)
The 1896, 1898, and 1901 San Bernardino, California 15-minute topographic quadrangle
maps do not show any quarrying activity within the property. Rather, the Declez Quarry operations
are noted southwest of the current project, near the current location of Southridge Park. Aerial
images demonstrate that by 1933, the subject property had been impacted by mining activities as
the quarrying operations had expanded northeast. USGS topographic maps from 1943 and 1967
indicate that the quarry operation within the subject property was located at the base of the Jurupa
Mountains, along the southern boundary of the property. Additionally, topographic maps and
aerial imagery demonstrate the presence of sidings and spurs from the Southern Pacific Railroad
running through the project, allowing for the loading of quarried rock onto trucks for transport.
Further, the 1933 aerial photograph illustrates the removal of dirt and portions of the mountainside,
the presence of dirt roads throughout the property, and piles of material adjacent to the quarry
location. The property appears similar in the 1938 aerial; however, the next available aerial, from
1948, depicts a general slowdown or complete stop to quarrying activities within the subject
property. The cessation of quarrying activities and removal of all associated features is evident
within subsequent aerial photographs, which is consistent with local sources indicting operations
ceased in 1950 (San Bernardino County Sun 1961; MacKevett 1951).
Subsequent aerial photographs also illustrate the removal and shifting of past quarry debris,
along with the later dumping of soil, building materials, and boulders, likely from adjacent
properties, within the subject property. Between 1977 and 1985, it appears that much of the
original quarried material was removed from the property; however, the 1989, 1994, 2002, and
later photographs illustrate the buildup and shifting of new stockpiles. This later buildup of
material within the subject property corresponds with the development of the Southridge
residential neighborhoods to the west/northwest, as well as the creation of a man-made drainage
channel and sewage treatment ponds to the north/northeast.
BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. At the time of this report, the SLF
results have not yet been received. All correspondence is provided in Appendix D.
4.2 Results of the Field Survey
Field archaeologist Mary Chitjian conducted the pedestrian survey of the project on July
26, 2024. Aerial photographs, maps, and a compass facilitated the orientation and location of
project boundaries. The entire property was surveyed in 15-meter transects. All exposed ground
surfaces were carefully inspected, including disturbed areas. A survey form, field notes, and
photographs documented the survey work undertaken.
During the survey, ground visibility was classified as poor to moderate, hindered at times
by vegetation, spoil piles, and rubble (Plate 4.2–1 to 4.2–4). Vegetation noted within the property
consisted primarily of non-native weeds and grasses interrupted by pockets of chapparal
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–3
community plants. Noted impacts to the property included several dirt access roads and various
spoil piles containing soil, blasted rock, boulders, building materials, modern trash, and other
imported materials. Further, although not working at the time of the survey, an excavator was
present on the property, and it appeared the machine has recently been utilized for the further
shifting of the imported material. Despite the past clearing and later dumping of material within
the property, it is likely that the observed spoil piles do contain some remnant rock and soil
originally quarried when the Declez Quarry was in operation. However, given the introduction of
materials, including trash and building materials that clearly postdate the use of the quarry, it is
impossible to separate any potentially associated quarried material from materials deposited within
the property in recent years. As such, it is evident that recent activity has moved dirt and rock
around the property and modern building materials such as asphalt and concrete have been
intermixed within the various spoil piles throughout the property. This emphasizes the disturbed
nature of the subject property.
The survey did not result in the identification of any prehistoric resources within the
project. However, two concentrations of historic trash were identified within the southwest and
southeast portions of the property, respectively. The trash scatters were identified as sites Temp-
1 and Temp-2 in the field, and recorded according to the OHP’s manual, Instructions for Recording
Historical Resources, using the appropriate DPR forms (Appendix B). The sites are depicted
within Figures 4.2–1 and 4.2–2 and described in further detail within the following sections.
Plate 4.2–1: Overview of the western portion of the project, facing south.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–4
Plate 4.2–2: Overview of the northern portion of the project, facing north.
Plate 4.2–3: Overview of the eastern portion of the project, facing
southeast.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–5
Plate 4.2–4: Overview of the northern portion of the project, facing south.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–6
Figure 4.2–1
Cultural Resource Location Map
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–7
Figure 4.2–2
Cultural Resource Locations Shown on Current Aerial Photograph
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–8
Site Temp-1
Site Temp-1 was located in the southwest portion of the project, within a spoil pile that
was deposited on top of a natural slope (Plate 4.2–5). The site consists of a historic trash scatter
measuring 15 by 15 meters, and the artifacts associated with the trash scatter primarily include
bottles, cans, glass, metal, and ceramic. Diagnostic bottles identified at Site Temp-1 appear
temporally affiliated with the early 1900s to mid-1950s. For example, an amber Duraglas beverage
bottle indicates it was manufactured during the mid-1950s. The makers mark on the base of the
bottle is a trademark that Owens-Illinois Glass Company adopted in 1954 (Glass Bottle Marks
2024). Additionally, bottles including the embossed cursive “Duraglas” were manufactured
between 1940 and 1964 (Lockhart and Hoenig 2015). Similarly, the embossment on the shoulder
of the bottle stating “FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS SALE OR RE-USE OF THIS BOTTLE” is an
indicator that the bottle was manufactured between 1940 and 1964 (Lockhart and Hoenig 2015).
Adjacent to the amber Duraglas bottle, two complete, clear bottles manufactured during the first
half of the twentieth century were identified (Plate 4.2–6). One of these bottles was manufactured
using the blown-in-mold (BIM) technique that was produced and is associated with a date range
of 1905 to 1950 (Lindsey 2015).
Plate 4.2–5: Overview of Site Temp-1, facing east.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–9
Site Temp-1 was found within disturbed soil removed from another location and dumped
within the subject property. The site survey results indicate that the entire property has been
disturbed by the recent movement of dirt and the mixture of modern trash within spoil piles
throughout the project. As such, Site Temp-1 is a secondary deposit of archaeological material
and does not possess integrity. Further, due to the lack of integrity, the artifacts cannot be
associated with any significant individuals or events. Such trash scatters are common to the area
and unlikely to yield any additional information. Therefore, Site Temp-1 is not eligible for the
CRHR as it:
a) lacks any association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) is not associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual or
possess high artistic values; and
d) is not able to yield, nor is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Site Temp-2
Site Temp-2 was located in the southeast portion of the project within a sandy deposit on
the hill slope, which appears to have been imported into the subject property (Plate 4.2–7). The
site consists of a historic trash scatter measuring 60 by 15 meters, and the artifacts associated with
Plate 4.2–6: Bottles identified at Site Temp-1, facing east.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–10
the trash scatter primarily include bottles, cans, glass, metal, and ceramic. Diagnostic bottles
identified at Site Temp-2 appear temporally affiliated with the 1960s (Plates 4.2–8 to 4.2–9). For
example, a 4/5 quart Gallo Flavor Guard green glass wine bottle associated with the 1960s was
included in the assemblage (WorthPoint Corporation 2024). The base of the bottle includes the
embossment “Gallo Flavor Guard Glass” that was manufactured between 1958 to mid-1990s
(Lockhart et al. 2015). Similarly, two bottle bases were recovered that dated to 1967 and 1964.
The 1967 bottle is an Anchor Hocking bottle, indicated by the “anchor over H” makers mark used
from 1937 to 1968 (Anchor Hocking Glass Museum 2015). The embossment “10” to the left of
the Anchor Hocking symbol indicates that it was manufactured at the Los Angeles, California
plant, Maywood Glass Co. (Lockhart et al. 2021)
Plate 4.2–7: Overview of Site Temp-2, facing northwest.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–11
Plate 4.2–8: 1960s Gallo Flavor Guard
bottle identified at Site Temp-2.
Plate 4.2–9: 1967 Anchor Hocking bottle
fragment identified at Site Temp-2.
Plate 4.2–10: 1964 bottle fragment
identified at Site Temp-2.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
4.0–12
Site Temp-2 artifacts were identified within a secondary deposit intermixed with a sandy
soil that appears to have been deposited onto the property from another location. The site survey
results indicate that the entire property has been disturbed by the recent movement of dirt and the
mixture of modern trash within spoil piles throughout the project. As such , Site Temp-2 is a
secondary deposit of archaeological material and does not possess integrity. Further, due to the
lack of integrity, the artifacts cannot be associated with any significant individuals or events. Such
trash scatters are common to the area and unlikely to yield any additional information. Therefore,
Site Temp-2 is not eligible for the CRHR as it:
e) lacks any association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
f) is not associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
g) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual or
possess high artistic values; and
h) is not able to yield, nor is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
5.0–1
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Phase I cultural resources assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project identified
two historic trash scatters, sites Temp-1 and Temp-2, within the project. Based upon the current
project design, both sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 may be either directly or indirectly impacted by the
proposed project (Figure 5.0–1). However, both sites are evaluated as not eligible for the CRHR.
Aerial images illustrate the removal and shifting of past quarry debris, along with the later dumping
of soil, building materials, and boulders, likely from adjacent properties, within the subject
property. Further, the contexts of sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 indicate that these sites are secondary
deposits intermixed in soil that appears to have come from outside of the project area, possibly
corresponding to the development of the Southridge residential neighborhoods to the
west/northwest and the sewage treatment ponds and drainage canal to the north/northeast of the
property. Considering these impacts and disturbances, sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 do not possess
integrity, are not eligible for the CRHR, and, therefore, are not considered historical resources
under CEQA criteria.
Although sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 are not eligible for the CRHR and the property has
been previously disturbed, ground visibility was hindered during the survey. Further, the records
search results confirmed the property’s former use as a quarry during the late-nineteenth and early-
twentieth century and its ties to the historic community of Declezville. Given the records search
results, the limited visibility during the survey, and the presence of sites Temp-1 and Temp-2
within the property, there remains potential for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological
resources during grading. Therefore, it is recommended that the project be conditioned with
archaeological monitoring during grading of the subject property.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
5.0–2
Figure 5.0–1
Sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 Shown on the
Project Development Map
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
6.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
August 13, 2024
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Date
Project Archaeologist
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES
Ancestry.com
2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc.
Anchor Hocking Glass Museum
2015 Anchor Hocking and Other Confusing Markings. Electronic document,
https://www.anchorhockingmuseum.com/History%20of%20Anchor%20Hocking.htm
l#:~:text=Anchor%20Hocking%20basically%20used%20only,in%20the%20last%20f
ew%20years, accessed July 2024
Anicic, John Charles, Jr.
1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms
Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society.
Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service.
2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina;
Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California.
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California.
Ballester and Morales
2019 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record form for Site
P-36-060221. CRM Tech. DPR form on file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center at California State University, Fullerton.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–2
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland,
California.
Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas,
California.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
City of Fontana
2018a Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035. Approved and Adopted by City
Council November 13, 2018. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan-
Documents-11-13-2018, accessed June 29, 2021.
2018b Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse #2016021099). Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-
Plan-Update, accessed June 29, 2021.
Cohen, K.M. and P.L. Gibbard
2011 Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years.
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on
Stratigraphy), Cambridge, England. Electronic document,
http://quaternary.stratigaphy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart-
v2011.jpeg.pdf, accessed July 2024.
Conford, Danial (editor)
1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and Oxford, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–3
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Curray, Joseph R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of
the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Department of the Interior
1925 Mineral Resources of the United States 1922. Washington Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records
1(1):1-52. University of California, Berkeley.
Drummy-Chapel, Vada
1981a Historical Assessment of Southridge Village. Archaeological Resource Management
Corporation. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information
Center at California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
1981b Addendum to Historical Assessment of the Southridge Village Project, City of Fontana,
California. Archaeological Resource Management Corp. Unpublished report on file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at
Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
Encarnacion, Deirdre, Harry M. Quinn, Daniel Ballester, and Laura H. Shaker
2008 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Fontana-3 Pipeline Laterals
Recycled Water Pipeline Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
CRM Tech. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center
at California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San
Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Sites on the California Coast. In
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson
and Roger H. Colten, pp. 101–111. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–4
Fagan, B.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Gallegos, Dennis
1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos
Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual
Papers 2(1).
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego
County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast,
edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Glass Bottle Marks
2024 Owens-Illinois Glass Company. Electronic document, https://glassbottlemarks.com/
owens-illinois-glass-company/accessed, July 2024.
Hall, William Hammond
1888 The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties: The Second Part of the Report of the State
Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation Question. State Office, J.D.
Young, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento.
Harmsworth Associates
1989 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Chino Basin Municipal Water District
Regional Plan No. 3 Facility, City of Fontana, California. Harmsworth Associates.
Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at
California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
Heizer, Robert F. (editor)
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology,
edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–5
Lindsey, Bill
2015 Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document,
http://www.sha.org/bottle/, accessed February 6, 2017.
Lockhart, Bill and Russ Hoenig
2015 The Bewildering Array of Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Logos and Codes. Electronic
document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/OwensIllinois2015.pdf, accessed July 2024.
Lockhart, Bill, Beau Schriever, Carol Serr, and Bill Lindsey
2015 Other G Marks. Electronic document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/GOther.pdf,
accessed July 2024.
2021 Anchor Hocking Glass Corp. Electronic document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/
AnchorHocking.pdf, accessed July 2024.
Lump, E. and Walker G.R.
2022 Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment: Conifer Ridge Property,
14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer Court and Village Drive, APN 0237-411-
27-0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 92337. Consulting report
prepared for Conifer Court LLC, Newport Beach, California, by Petra Geosciences,
Inc. Temecula, California.
MacKevett, E.M.
1951 Geology of the Jurupa Mountains, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Division
of Mines Special Report No. 5, State of California Dept. of Natural Resources, San
Francisco.
Martin, P.S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.
Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern
California. In: Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the
Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C.
Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San
Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1–A19. Infotec Research,
Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–6
McLean, Deborah and Jani Monk
1997 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Kaiser West End Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, CA. 12+PP. LSA. Unpublished report on file at the South Central
Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.
Miller, J.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern
California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis. University of California, San Diego.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Morton, D.M.
2003 Preliminary geologic Map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
03-418, scale 1:24,000.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1–
46.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
2012 A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II
Housing. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2024 An online soil survey browser. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.
usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 2024.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing
Company, San Diego, California.
Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San
Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM
Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego
Museum of Man.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–7
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
San Bernardino County Sun
1961 Declez Granite Hauled to Make Harbor for L.A. 23 April:55. San Bernardino,
California.
1966 Watch Chickens. 6 November:18. San Bernardino, California.
1971 Big Bird Killed; Mate Mutilated in Fontana. 4 May:4. San Bernardino, California.
1976 Animal refuge requested. 8 August:34. San Bernardino, California.
Schroth, Adella
1981 Archaeological Assessment of the Southridge Village Project, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County. Archaeological Resource Management Corp. Unpublished report
on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University
at Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation,
Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1).
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Sturm, Bradley L., Jani Monk, and Ivan H. Strudwick
1995 Cultural Resources Survey & National Register Assessment of the Kaiser Steel Mill
for the California Speedway Project, Fontana, CA. LSA. Unpublished report on file
at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University,
Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis
cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science
204:701–710.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0–8
Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural
Development of Batequitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of
California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246–338.
World Forestry Center
2017 Andrew Jackson Pope. Electronic document, https://www.worldforestry.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/POPE-ANDREW-JACKSON.pdf, accessed February 2019.
WorthPoint Corporation
2024 5 Vintage Gallo Flavor Guard Green Glass Wine Bottles-1960s Era-Old Bottle
w/Cap. Electronic document, https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-
gallo-flavor-guard-green-1826108295, accessed July 2019.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, M .A., RPA
Project Archaeologist
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa.perennialenv.com
Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009
Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005
Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005
Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal
agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and
perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records
checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric
lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private
clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological
monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed
projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory
direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California
Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grant-
funded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California
Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural
resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project,
City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San
Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La
Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside
County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian
F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project,
Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California.
2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel
Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of
Mills Act application.
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 3
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys,
Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian
Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific
Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State
University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic
Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource
Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from
CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual
Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society
for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the
Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California.
2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those
Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of
experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ATTACHMENT B
Site Record Forms
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Seperately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
APPENDIX C
Confidential Maps
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Seperately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
APPENDIX D
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
APPENDIX E
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)