The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAppendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Enclave)November 2025 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ENCLAVE AT NORTH FONTANA PROJECT APN 1108-08-04 FONTANA, SAN BERNADINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 2025 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ENCLAVE AT NORTH FONTANA PROJECT APN 1108-08-04 FONTANA, SAN BERNADINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared on Behalf of: City of Fontana Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Prepared for: Stacy Sassaman Lewis Management Corporation 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, California 91786 Prepared by: Matthew Behrend, MA, RPA and Cassidy Sharp, MSc, RPA LSA Associates, Inc. 3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 LSA Project No. 20252531 National Archaeological Data Base Information: Type of Study: Pedestrian Survey Sites Recorded: None USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Devore, California Acreage: 11.99 Keywords: Phase I, negative results, no monitoring recommended P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY LSA conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Enclave at North Fontana Project (project) in Fontana, California. The currently undeveloped 11.99-acre project site is within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ([APN] 1108-08-04) and is located at the northeast corner of Curtis Avenue and Catawba Avenue in Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The City of Fontana (City) as the Lead Agency for the project required this assessment as part of the environmental review process to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the assessment is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine, as mandated by CEQA, whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project site. To identify and evaluate such resources, LSA conducted a cultural resources records search, additional research, review of an earlier study that included the project site, and field survey of the project site. No cultural resources were documented within the project site, and none were identified by the 2023 field survey. The negative findings and severely disturbed condition of the project (due to grading and vegetation abatement activities) are consistent with those of an earlier study that included the project site and indicated a lack of sensitivity for in situ subsurface cultural resources. STANDARD CONDITIONS In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all construction work should be halted and a qualified archaeologist consulted to determine the appropriate treatment of the discovery (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(f)). In the event human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA ii TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 NATURAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 4 Climate And Watershed ................................................................................................................. 4 Biology ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 4 CULTURAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 5 Prehistory ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Ethnography ................................................................................................................................... 5 Cahuilla ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Grabrieliño .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Serrano ............................................................................................................................................... 6 History ............................................................................................................................................ 7 San Bernadino County (from Goodwin 2022) ..................................................................................... 7 City of Fontana (from City of Fontana 2025) ...................................................................................... 8 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search ............................................................................................................................... 8 Additional Research ....................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 9 Native American consultation ........................................................................................................ 9 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 10 Records Search ............................................................................................................................. 10 Additional Research ..................................................................................................................... 15 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................. 15 Native american consultation ...................................................................................................... 15 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 16 buried site sensitivity analysis ..................................................................................................... 16 standard conditions ..................................................................................................................... 16 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE Figure 1: Project Vicinity ......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 3 Standard Conditions ........................................................................................................................ i P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA iii APPENDICES A: RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS LETTER B: SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS C: NATIVE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS APN Assessor’s Parcel Number CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act County County of San Bernadino Ma million years old mi mile/miles MLD Most Likely Descendant NAHC Native American Heritage Commission PRC Public Resources Code project Enclave at North Fontana Project SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center USGS United States Geological Survey P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 1 INTRODUCTION LSA conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Enclave at North Fontana Project (project) in Fontana, California. The project is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Devore, California topographic quadrangle map in Township 1 North, Range 6 West, Section 25, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (USGS 1988; Figures 1 and 2). The 11.99-acre project site is within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ([APN] 1108-08-04). The proposed project includes the construction of a 153-unit condominium community, with 84 multi-family dwelling units and 69 single-family dwelling units at the northeast corner of Curtis Avenue and Catawba Avenue in Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The project site is surrounded by developed roadways and existing single- and two-story residential development on all sides. The project site is bounded by single-family homes to the west, single-family homes and Citrus Avenue to the east, single-family homes to the north, and Curtis Avenue to the south. The City of Fontana (City), as the Lead Agency for the project, required this assessment in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.). LSA completed the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine, as mandated by CEQA, whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any significant historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project site. To identify and evaluate such resources, LSA conducted a cultural resources record search including additional research, and a field survey. This report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the assessment. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 2 Figure 1: Project Vicinity P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 3 Figure 2: Project Location P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 4 NATURAL SETTING CLIMATE AND WATERSHED The project region is characterized by an arid climate, with dry, hot summers and moderate winters. Rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Beck and Haase 1974). Precipitation usually occurs in the form of winter rain, with warm monsoonal showers in summer. The nearest natural reliable source of water is Lytle Creek (approximately 3.0 miles northeast), which drains southeast. BIOLOGY At an elevation of approximately 2,460 feet, the project site is within the Lower Sonoran Life Zone of California (Schoenherr 1992), which ranges from below sea level to 3,500 feet. Plant species such as buckwheat, cholla, poison oak and sagebrush, along with xeric grasses, were noted on the property. Extensive fauna are known locally, including many endemic species of reptiles, birds, and insects. Common animals of this region include rodents, rabbits, coyotes, raptors, reptiles, vultures, and insects. GEOLOGY The project area is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a 900-mile-long northwest-southeast-trending structural block that extends from the Transverse Ranges to the tip of Baja California and includes the Los Angeles Basin (California Geological Survey 2002; Norris and Webb 1976). The province is approximately 225 miles wide, extending from the Colorado Desert in the east, across the continental shelf to the Southern Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente) in the west (Sharp 1976). This region is characterized by a series of mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending valleys subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The geology of this province is similar to that of the Sierra Nevada, with numerous rock outcroppings useful to the Native Americans for resource milling, shelter, and ceremonial art. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 5 CULTURAL SETTING PREHISTORY Chronologies of prehistoric cultural change in Southern California have been attempted numerous times, and several are reviewed in Moratto (2004). No single description is universally accepted, as the various chronologies are based primarily on material developments identified by researchers familiar with sites in a particular region and variation exists essentially due to the differences in those items found at the sites. Small differences occur over time and space, which combine to form patterns that are variously interpreted. Currently, two primary regional culture chronology syntheses are commonly referenced in the archaeological literature. The first, Wallace (1955), describes four cultural horizons or time periods: Horizon I – Early Man (9000–6000 BC), Horizon II – Milling Stone Assemblages (6000–3000 BC), Horizon III – Intermediate Cultures (3000 BC–AD 500), and Horizon IV – Late Prehistoric Cultures (AD 500–historic contact). This chronology was refined by Wallace (1978) using absolute chronological dates obtained after 1955. The second cultural chronology, Warren (1968), is based broadly on Southern California prehistoric cultures and was later revised by Warren (1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986). Warren’s (1984) chronology includes five periods in prehistory: Lake Mojave (7000–5000 BC), Pinto (5000–2000 BC), Gypsum (2000 BC–AD 500), Saratoga Springs (AD 500–1200), and Protohistoric (AD 1200–historic contact). Changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, which begins with gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene; continues with the desiccation of the desert lakes, followed by a brief return to pluvial conditions; and concludes with a general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals that continue to the present (Warren and Crabtree 1986). ETHNOGRAPHY The project area is near the intersection of the traditional cultural territories of the Cahuilla, Grabrieliño, and Serrano (Kroeber 1925; Heizer 1968). Tribal territories were somewhat fluid and changed over time. The first written accounts of these Southern California tribes are attributed to the mission fathers, and later documentation was by others as indicated below. Cahuilla The territory of the Cahuilla ranged from the San Bernardino Mountains south to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains, from Orocopia Mountain to the east, to the San Jacinto Plain and Palomar Mountain to the west (Bean 1978). Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of Southern California and encompassed diverse environments ranging from inland river valleys and foothills to mountains and desert (Bean and Shipek 1978). Cahuilla villages, generally located near water sources within canyons or near alluvial fans, comprised groups of related individuals, generally from a single lineage, and the territory around the village was owned by the villagers (Bean 1978). Like other Native American groups in Southern P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 6 California, the Cahuilla were semi-nomadic peoples leaving their villages and utilizing temporary campsites to exploit seasonably available plant and animal resources (James 1960). Cahuilla subsistence was based primarily on acorns, honey mesquite, screw beans, piñon nuts, and cactus fruit, supplemented by a variety of wild fruits and berries, tubers, roots, and greens (Kroeber 1925; Heizer and Elsasser 1980). Hunting deer, rabbit, antelope, bighorn sheep, reptiles, small rodents, quail, doves, ducks, and reptiles by means of bows, throwing sticks, traps, and communal drives is documented (James 1960). The Cahuilla were documented by Barrows (1900), Hooper (1920), and Strong (1929), among others. Grabrieliño The territory of the Grabrieliño included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties during ethnohistoric times, and also extended inland into northwestern Riverside County (Kroeber 1925; Heizer 1968). It encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys, foothills, and mountains (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Grabrieliño caught and collected seasonally available food resources, and led a semi-sedentary lifestyle, living in permanent communities along inland watercourses and coastal estuaries. Individuals from these villages took advantage of the varied resources available. Seasonally, as foods became available, native groups moved to temporary camps to collect plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chía, berries, and fruits, and to conduct communal rabbit and deer hunts. They also established seasonal camps along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl (Hudson 1971). The Grabrieliño lived in small communities, which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked, extended families occupied each village (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978a). Both clans and villages were apparently exogamous, marrying individuals from outside the clan or village (Heizer 1968). Grabrieliño villages were politically independent and were administered by a chief, who inherited his position from his father. Shamans guided religious and medical activities, while group hunting or fishing was supervised by individual male specialists (Bean and Smith 1978a). The nearest historically known Grabrieliño community was Horuuvunga (also known to the Serrano as Jurupet and described to Alfred Kroeber as Hurumpa), purportedly located 2 to 3 miles east or southeast of the project area (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1925; Kirkman 1938; McCawley 1996). Given the importance of water access to precontact communities, the village was most likely near the Santa Ana River. The Grabrieliño were described by Johnston (1962), Blackburn (1962–1963), Hudson (1971), and others. Serrano The Serrano lived in the area generally north of Cahuilla territory (western Riverside County), occupying much of present-day San Bernardino County and northeastern Los Angeles County, but P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 7 there is some overlap in the ancestral areas. The term Serrano is Spanish for “mountaineer” or “highlander” and is derived from sierra, meaning “mountain range.” The name was given to people who inhabited the areas of the San Bernardino Mountains that had no associated mission (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano culture group actually incorporates two divisions, a mountain division (referred to as the Mountain Serrano) and a desert division, referred to as the Desert Serrano (Sutton and Earle 2017). The Serrano were hunter-gatherers who exploited whatever flora was available in the area they happened to be. Generally, this flora included acorns, pinion nuts, honey, mesquite, yucca, and cactus fruits, in addition to various seeds, bulbs, and roots. Plants were consumed both raw and cooked. Food processing involved the use of manos, metates, mortars, and pestles. Antelope, deer, mountain sheep, rabbits, and rodents were hunted and captured, and the most common hunting implements were the bow and arrow, throwing stick, traps, snares, and deadfalls. Meat was prepared in earth ovens, by boiling in watertight baskets, or by parching (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano had a patrilineal society composed of clans and families linked by both ancestry and ceremony, and most lived in small communities near reliable sources of water (springs, perennial seeps, streams, and small lakes) (Benedict 1924). The basic settlement unit of the Serrano was a village with a number of small satellite resource-gathering camps. The Serrano were described by Benedict (1924), Bright (1975), Strong (1929), and others. With the Spanish intrusion came a drastic change in lifestyle for the natives of Southern California. Incorporation of the indigenous populations into the mission system led to the disruption of native cultures and changes in subsistence and land use practices. Mission San Gabriel, established in 1771, probably had a limited effect until the asistencia was established near Redlands, perhaps as early as 1819 (Harley 1988). Cattle ranch/farm settlements were established on or near Indian villages, primarily in the major drainages conducive to horticulture and animal husbandry. Within a short time, the missions controlled many ranchos where Indians lived and worked. HISTORY In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1821), the Mexican Period (1821–1848), and the American Period (1848–present). As no resources were within the project site, the context will address the county and local community during the American period. San Bernadino County (from Goodwin 2022) San Bernardino County was created in 1853 from portions of Los Angeles and San Diego Counties due to mineral wealth, and the City of San Bernardino was incorporated as the county seat the following year. Gold was discovered in Holcomb and Bear Valleys in the San Bernardino Mountains in 1860, and placer mining began in Lytle Creek. Silver was mined at Ivanpah in 1870 and the silver mines of the Calico district were developed in the 1880s. Borax was first discovered in 1862 in the Searles Dry Lake area near Trona (Hoover et al. 1990). Agriculture ultimately replaced mining as the County’s economic base, with thousands of acres under cultivation by the beginning of World War I (McGroarty 1914). P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 8 City of Fontana (from City of Fontana 2025) Founded in 1913, Fontana is currently the second largest city in San Bernardino County, and the 19th largest in the State of California. Fontana began as an agricultural community in 1913 and became a thriving industrial town by 1942 due to the opening of the Henry J. Kaiser’s steel mill operations during World War II, on the outskirts of town. Kaiser Steel remained a primary source of employment and revenue until 1984 when it ceased operation. His legacy lives on at the Fontana Kaiser Permanente Facility, which now employs more than 6,000 people. Since then, the City has continued to grow rapidly due to several factors, including the development of the Kaiser Permanente Hospital facility (one of the largest medical facilities in the region) and the unparalleled population growth stimulating major residential, commercial, and industrial development. The City of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952. The City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) encompass an area of approximately 52.4 square miles and contain a population of approximately 213,000 people. It is located in San Bernardino County, approximately 50 miles east of Los Angeles. Due to its geographic location, the City is identified as “…the crossroads of the Inland Empire” (Fontana Chamber of Commerce, 2008). Fontana continues to be a vital hub for the supply chain, due to the City’s location at the crossroads of major trade routes (I-10, I-15, and SR-210) and the presence of the Union Pacific Railroad. The City is also home to many large retailers and small businesses. The Fontana Metrolink station provides a low-stress commuting option for residents working in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Today, more than 213,000 people call the City of Fontana home. Fontana’s low crime rate, affordable housing, diversity, and below-average unemployment rate has made the city one of the fastest- growing in California and a trendsetter in San Bernardino County. Temperate southern California weather allows the City to host festivals, parades and walks/races throughout the year. METHODS RECORDS SEARCH On August 25, 2025, LSA Archaeologist Matt Behrend requested a records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC is an affiliate of the California State Office of Historic Preservation and is the official State repository for cultural resource records and reports for San Bernardino County. The SCCIC returned the records search results on October 22, 2025. The objectives of this research were to (1) establish the status and extent of previously recorded resources and studies in the Project area and it’s immediate vicinity. The record search included a review of previously documented prehistoric and historic- period and cultural resource records within a 1-mile radius of the project site, as well as a review of cultural resources reports in the database. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH In October 2025, LSA Archaeologist Cassidy Sharp reviewed online historic-period maps and aerial photographs of the project site. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 9 FIELD SURVEY On October 9, 2025, LSA Cultural Resource Manager Matt Behrend, M.A., RPA, surveyed the project area by walking transects spaced 10 meters apart, with particular attention given to exposed areas and rodent aprons for cultural residues. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION LSA, on behalf of the City of Fontana, requested a tribal consultation contact list from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 22, 2025 pursuant AB 52 and SB 18. The NAHC provided a response with the updated list on September 3, 2025 (Appendix C). The tribal consultation list, and tribal consultation letters, were prepared by LSA on the City’s behalf. The City, in turn, distributed formal AB 52 and SB 18 notifications to all tribal contacts identified by the NAHC on September 30, 2025. The following tribal entities were included: • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cahuilla Band of Indians • Fort Yuma Quechan • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Grabrieliño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Grabrieliño/Tongva Nation • Grabrieliño-Tongva Tribe • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians • Serrano Nation of Mission Indians • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians • Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 10 RESULTS RECORDS SEARCH The record search (Appendix A) identified a single historic resource within the project area and portions of two previous studies within the project area. Forty-three (43) historic resources and 42 previous studies have been recorded within the 1-mile search radius of the project area (Tables A & B). Table A: Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the Project Area Resource # Date Recorded Resource Type Within APE? P-36-006251 1989 Historic foundations No P-36-006583 1987 Historic homestead No P-36-006584 1986 Historic structure No P-36-006585 1990 Historic structure No P-36-006586 1990 Historic homestead No P-36-006587 1990 Historic foundations No P-36-006588 1990 Historic structure No P-36-006589 1990 Historic water conveyance No P-36-006901 1991 Historic water conveyance No P-36-007326 1992 Historic foundations No P-36-009367 1996 Historic dam and water conveyance No P-36-009370 1996 Historic site No P-36-011506 2002 Historic site No P-36-011510 2002 Historic road No P-36-011511 2002 Historic road No P-36-011512 2002 Historic road No P-36-014191 1989 Historic home No P-36-014192 1989 Historic home No P-36-014193 1989 Historic home No P-36-014194 1989 Historic home No P-36-014195 1989 Historic home No P-36-014196 1989 Historic home No P-36-014197 1989 Historic inn No P-36-014198 1989 Historic home No P-36-014199 1989 Historic home No P-36-014200 1989 Historic motel No P-36-014201 1989 Historic home No P-36-014202 1989 Historic home No P-36-015291 1989 Historic home No P-36-015376 1989 Historic homesteads and water conveyance systems YES P-36-019910 2004 Historic home No P-36-019911 2004 Historic home No P-36-019912 2004 Historic home No P-36-019913 2004 Historic home No P-36-020148 2004 Historic home No P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 11 Table A: Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the Project Area Resource # Date Recorded Resource Type Within APE? P-36-020915 2009 Historic home No P-36-020916 2009 Historic home No P-36-020917 2009 Historic home No P-36-020918 2009 Historic home No Source: South Central Coastal Information Center (2025). Site P-36-015376, the historic Grapeland Homestead and Water Works Historic District, is mapped within the project area. The extreme southwestern portion of the District intersects the current project area. As one of the earliest settler communities in the region, the District spans over 10,000 acres and includes a number of historic farmsteads/homesteads, historic homes, and water distribution systems. No contributing elements to the District are located within the project area. The record search identified 42 reports that have produced studies within 1 mile of the project area (Table B). Two previous surveys (SB-02621 and SB-04209) have been conducted, with negative results, within portions of the project area. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 12 Table B: Studies Within 1 Mile of the Project Area Report # Year Author(s) Title Includes Project Area SB-00398 1976a Joseph E. Hearn Archaeological – Historical Resources Assessment of Area Proposed for Construction of Facilities for Fire Protection Services and Sheriff’s Curation Services No SB-00438 1976b Joseph E. Hearn Archaeological – Historical Resources Assessment of North Fontana Park and Recreation District at Highland Avenue and Catawea Avenue in Fontana Area No SB-00867 1979 Gerald A. Smith Cultural Resources Assessment of a 10 Acre Parcel on Juniper between Walnut and Highland Ave., Fontana-Rialto Area No SB-01011 1980 Gerald A. Smith Tentative Tract No. 11523 Archaeological Survey No SB-01407 1983 John Charles Anicic, Jr. Historical Brief on Grapeland, Sierra Heights Development No SB-01501 1985 Roger D. Mason Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Etiwanda Pipeline and Power Plant EIR No SB-01611 1986 Ronald M. Bissell A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the La Cuesta Property, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No SB-01737 1987 Roger G. Hathaway and Jeanette A. McKenna Determination of Eligibility for the La Cuesta Property: Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Resources No SB-01960 1989a Jeanette A. McKenna Cultural Resources Investigations of the Phase I Tree Relocation Property within the Proposed Sierra Lakes Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No SB-01983 1989b Jeanette A. McKenna Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project Area, Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No SB-02064 1990a Jeanette A. McKenna Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project Area Phase 6, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No SB-02096 1990b Jeanette A. McKenna Phase II Investigations: Historic Documentation and Archaeological Test Excavations of Sites Within the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No SB-02530 1989 Gallup, et. al Historical Architectural Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report for a Proposed Highway on New Alignment No SB-02621 1992 Alexandrowicz, et. al Cultural And Paleontological Resources Investigations Within the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Yes SB-02765 1993a Jeanette A. McKenna A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory for the Sierra Lakes West Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca No SB-02766 1993b Jeanette A. McKenna Addendum Report: A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Sierra Lakes West Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca No SB-02851 1993 Landis, Daniel G. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Chino Basin Groundwater Storage Program, San Bernardino County, Ca No P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 13 Table B: Studies Within 1 Mile of the Project Area Report # Year Author(s) Title Includes Project Area SB-03049 1995 McKenna, et. al Determination Of Eligibility Report: Historic Structure Remains Located at the Northeast Corner of Citrus & Summit Avenues, Fontana, San Bernardino, Ca No SB-03050 1995 Jeanette A. McKenna A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of Westgate Property (1000 +/- Acres) in the City Of Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca No SB-03172 1996a Jeanette A. McKenna and Richard S. Shepard A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of The Landings 750 LLC Project Area, a 200 +/- Acre Property Located in North Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. No SB-03173 1997 Jeanette A. McKenna and Richard S. Shepard Phase III Cultural Resources Investigation: Archaeological Monitoring Program for The Landings 750 LLC Project Area, a 200 +/- Acre Property Located in North Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. No SB-03174 1996b Jeanette A. McKenna and Richard S. Shepard A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Summit Heights Project Area, Located in North Fontana, San Bernardino, CA No SB-03527 2000 Jeanette A. McKenna A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Fontana Unified School District Site #4 in The City of Fontana No SB-03957 2004 Kenneth M. Becker and Anne Q. Stoll Cultural Resource Survey of Fontana Park Project, APN: 0226-092-60, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. No SB-04018 2002 Fred Budinger Proposed Wireless Device Monopine and Equipment Cabinet, Cooper Site, 16194 Citrus Ave, Fontana, CA No SB-04020 1996 Jeanette A. McKenna Historic Documentation & Archaeological Test Excavations of Historic Archaeological Sites within the Sierra Lakes Tree Location Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. No SB-04021 1999a Jeanette A. McKenna Archaeological and Architectural Recordation of the Summit Ave Reservoir Located within Township 1 North Range 5 West Section 30, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA No SB-04022 1999b Jeanette A. McKenna Report of Archaeological Monitoring Activities at the Sierra Lakes Project Site, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA No SB-04207 2004 Michael Hogan Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Fontana Auto Mall Overlay Zone, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA No SB-04209 2004 Jeanette A. McKenna A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Elementary School #33 Project Area in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA Yes SB-04547 2005a Richard Shepard Cultural Resources Assessment: Fairfield Apartments Project Site, APN 0226-135-03, Fontana, San Bernardino County, C A No SB-04548 2005b Richard Shepard Cultural Resources Assessment: Lytle Creek Apartments Project Site, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA No SB-05088 2005 Jeanette A. McKenna A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Middle School No. 10, Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 14 Table B: Studies Within 1 Mile of the Project Area Report # Year Author(s) Title Includes Project Area SB-05089 2004 Richard M. Perry An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of 210 Acres for the Proposed Citrus Heights North Specific Plan in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California No SB-05095 2005 Wayne H. Bonner Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Telecommunications Facility Candidate Horizon Tower- Fontanna, 6498 Catawba Avenue, Fontanna, San Bernardino, California No SB-05691 2006 Stacey C. Jordan Archaeological Survey Report for the Southern California Edison Company DSP-Mora 12kV Circuit Alternatives Project, San Bernardino County, California No SB-06016 2008a Jeanette A. McKenna A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Middle School 8.75, Approximately 30.5 Acres Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino Co., California No SB-06392 2008b Jeanette A. McKenna Addendum Report: Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Middle School 8.75 Additional Lots Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino Co., California No SB-06414 2009a Bai “Tom” Tang Addendum to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Fontana Sports Park Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. No SB-06450 2009b Bai “Tom” Tang Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Fontana Sports Park Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. No SB-06986 2010 Amy Glover and Sherri Gust Phase I Resources Assessment Report for the Falcon Ridge Substation Project in the Cities of Fontana and Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. No SB-07375 2012 Wayne H. Bonner and Sarah A. Williams Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate IE24363-B (SCE Tower), 5458 Citrus Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. No SB-07783 2003 Riordan Goodwin Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment: JW Mitchell Land Co., LLC Specific Plan, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. No SB-07990 2014 Joan George and Josh Smallwood Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Etiwanda Pipeline North Relining Project, Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California No Source: South Coastal Information Center (2025). The Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) shows that there are no listed properties within the project area. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 15 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH Preliminary research revealed that the subject parcel has been vacant since at least the 1950s (Historic Aerials 2025). Aerials indicated that over time, the parcel has been subject to repeated disturbance for agricultural purposes. In the past 20 years, disturbances to the subject parcel appear to be related to nearby construction episodes on adjacent parcels. Sometime in 2015, a trailer, likely related to nearby home construction, was placed in the southwestern corner of the parcel; that trailer is still present today. FIELD SURVEY On October 9, 2025, Mr. Behrend conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire project area, utilizing transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart. The project area is a vacant lot on a site that has been disced and bulldozed repeatedly, based upon historic aerials of the project area (Appendix B). A single construction trailer remains in the Southwest corner of the parcel, potentially remaining from previous episodes of housing developments on adjacent parcels. Vegetation observed on site includes Russian thistle, ironwood/greasewood, seasonal grasses, and California buckwheat. Many push piles from previous razing of property were seen throughout the parcel. The majority of the project area surface was disturbed, and visibility was poor, with approximately 90 percent of the ground surface obscured by vegetation. Modern refuse was noted throughout the site but concentrated along the Southwest corner and the north and south perimeter. No additional historic or prehistoric cultural resources were identified (Attachment C). NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION At the time this report was prepared, LSA and the City received three tribal responses to the initial outreach letters. The Ft. Yuma Quechan and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded on October 24, 2025, indicating that they do not wish to participate in consultation. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation responded on October 27, 2025, indicating that they do not object to the zoning changes at this time, but they requested a cultural resources survey and to be included in updates once a project or projects for the parcel is designated. Consultation is ongoing. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 16 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS BURIED SITE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A cultural resources records search, additional research, review of an earlier study encompassed the project site, and field survey was conducted in 2004 (McKenna) and 2025 (Behrend and Sharp) for this assessment of the project site. Although the southwestern extant of historic site P-36-015376 is within the project area, no historic features were previously documented within project site, and none were identified by the 2004 and 2025 field surveys. The negative findings and severely disturbed condition of the project site (due to grading and vegetation abatement activities) are consistent with those of the earlier study that included the project site and indicated a lack of sensitivity for in situ subsurface cultural resources. However, due to the proximity of historic-period archaeological and built environment resources to the project area, there is potential local interest in non-in situ resources. STANDARD CONDITIONS Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. In the event human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 17 immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 18 REFERENCES Alenxandrowicz, J. Steven, Anne Q. Duffield-Stoll, Jeanette A. McKenna, Susan R. Alexandrowicz, Arthur K. Juhner, and Eric Scott 1992 Cultural And Paleontological Resources Investigations Within the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Anicic, Jr., John Charles 1983 Historical Brief on Grapeland, Sierra Heights Development Barrows, David Prescott 1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahilla [sic] Indians of Southern California. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press. Becker, Kenneth M. and Anne Q. Stoll 2004 Cultural Resource Survey of Fontana Park Project, APN: 0226-092-60, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. Behrend, Matt and Cassidy Sharp 2025 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Enclave at North Fontana Project APN 1108-08-04 Fontana, San Bernadino County, California (this document). Bonner, Wayne H. 2005 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Telecommunications Facility Candidate Horizon Tower-Fontanna, 6498 Catawba Avenue, Fontanna, San Bernardino, California. Bonner, Wayne H. and Sarah A. Williams 2012 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate IE24363-B (SCE Tower), 5458 Citrus Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Budinger, Fred 2002 Proposed Wireless Device Monopine and Equipment Cabinet, Cooper Site, 16194 Citrus Ave, Fontana, CA California Geological Survey 2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. California Department of Conservation. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 19 City of Fontana 2025 About the City of Fontana. https://www.fontanaca.gov/3654/About-Us Gallup, Aaron A., Bonnie W. Parks, Denise O’Connor, and Stephen D. Mikesell 1989 Historical Architectural Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report for a Proposed Highway on New Alignment George, Joan and Josh Smallwood 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Etiwanda Pipeline North Relining Project, Cities of Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Glover, Amy and Sherri Gust 2010 Phase I Resources Assessment Report for the Falcon Ridge Substation Project in the Cities of Fontana and Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. Goodwin, Riordan 2003 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment: JW Mitchell Land Co., LLC Specific Plan, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Hathaway, Roger G. and Jeanette A. McKenna 1987 Determination of Eligibility for the La Cuesta Property: Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Resources Hearn, Joseph E. 1976a Archaeological – Historical Resources Assessment of Area Proposed for Construction of Facilities for Fire Protection Services and Sheriff’s Curation Services 1976b Archaeological – Historical Resources Assessment of North Fontana Park and Recreation District at Highland Avenue and Catawea Avenue in Fontana Area Heizer, Robert F. 1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County. Hugo Reid’s Letters of 1852. Southwest Museum Papers 21. Los Angeles, California. Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser 1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Historic Aerials (HistoricAerials.com) 2025 Various aerial photographs of the project site. Hogan, Michael 2004 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Fontana Auto Mall Overlay Zone, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 20 Hooper, Lucile 1920 The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 16, No. 6. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press. Banning, California. James, Harry C. 1960 The Cahuilla Indians. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press. Reprinted in 1969 and 1985 by Malki Museum Press. Banning, California. Jordan, Stacey C. 2006 Archaeological Survey Report for the Southern California Edison Company DSP-Mora 12kV Circuit Alternatives Project, San Bernardino County, California. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted in 1976, New York: Dover Publications. Landis, Daniel G. 1993 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Chino Basin Groundwater Storage Program, San Bernardino County, Ca. McKenna, Jeanette A. 1989a Cultural Resources Investigations of the Phase I Tree Relocation Property within the Proposed Sierra Lakes Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1989b Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project Area, Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1990a Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project Area Phase 6, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1990b Phase II Investigations: Historic Documentation and Archaeological Test Excavations of Sites Within the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1993a A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory for the Sierra Lakes West Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca. 1993b Addendum Report: A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Sierra Lakes West Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca. 1995 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of Westgate Property (1000 +/- Acres) in the City Of Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca. 1996 Historic Documentation & Archaeological Test Excavations of Historic Archaeological Sites within the Sierra Lakes Tree Location Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 21 1999a Archaeological and Architectural Recordation of the Summit Ave Reservoir Located within Township 1 North Range 5 West Section 30, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 1999b Report of Archaeological Monitoring Activities at the Sierra Lakes Project Site, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 2000 A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Fontana Unified School District Site #4 in The City of Fontana. 2004 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Elementary School #33 Project Area in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 2005 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Middle School No. 10, Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. 2008a A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Middle School 8.75, Approximately 30.5 Acres Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino Co., California. 2008b Addendum Report: Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School District Middle School 8.75 Additional Lots Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino Co., California. McKenna, Jeanette A. and Richard S. Shepard 1996a A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of The Landings 750 LLC Project Area, a 200 +/- Acre Property Located in North Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 1996b A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Summit Heights Project Area, Located in North Fontana, San Bernardino, CA. 1997 Phase III Cultural Resources Investigation: Archaeological Monitoring Program for The Landings 750 LLC Project Area, a 200 +/- Acre Property Located in North Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. McKenna, Jeanette A., Tamara L. Farris, and Richard S. Shepard 1995 Determination Of Eligibility Report: Historic Structure Remains Located at the Northeast Corner of Citrus & Summit Avenues, Fontana, San Bernardino, Ca. Mason, Roger D. 1985 Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Etiwanda Pipeline and Power Plant EIR Moratto, Michael J. 2004 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Originally published 1984. Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb 1976 Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Santa Barbara. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 22 Perry, Richard M. 2004 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of 210 Acres for the Proposed Citrus Heights North Specific Plan in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Schoenherr, Allan A. 1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Sharp, Robert P. 1976 Southern California (K/H Geology Field Guide Series). Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque. Shepard, Richard 2005a Cultural Resources Assessment: Fairfield Apartments Project Site, APN 0226-135-03, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. 2005b Cultural Resources Assessment: Lytle Creek Apartments Project Site, Fontana, San Bernardino County, CA. Smith, Gerald A. 1979 Cultural Resources Assessment of a 10 Acre Parcel on Juniper between Walnut and Highland Ave., Fontana-Rialto Area 1980 Tentative Tract No. 11523 Archaeological Survey Strong, William D. 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1): 1–358. Berkeley. Tang, Bai “Tom” 2009a Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Fontana Sports Park Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. 2009b Addendum to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Fontana Sports Park Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1981 Devore, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA 23 Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Portales. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. Moratto with contributions by D.A. Fredrickson, C. Raven, and C.N. Warren, pp. 339–430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree 1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In W.L. D’Azevedo, ed., Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, pp. 183–193. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA P:\2025\20252531 - Enclave at North Fontana\PRODUCT\Technical Studies\Cultural\CRA\20252531 Enclave at North Fontana_consultupdate.docx (11/05/25) APPENDIX A RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS LETTER P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA APPENDIX B SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA Figure B-1. Project area overview from southwest corner, looking northeast. Figure B-2. Project Area overview, view north from center of project area P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA Figure B-3. Project area overview from northeast corner, view west. Figure B-4. Project area overview from southeast corner, view northwest. P HASE I C ULTURAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT N OVEMBER 2025 E NCLAVE AT N ORTH F ONTANA P ROJECT F ONTANA, C ALIFORNIA APPENDIX C NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION