a phase i cultural resources investigation of the …

A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION

OF THE PROPOSED OFT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT YARD, SAN BERNARDINO

AVENUE AT LIVE OAK AVENUE, SAN BERNARDINO CO.,

CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

LILBURN CORPORATION Attn: Cheryl Tubbs

1905 Business Center Drive San Bernardino, California 92408

Prepared by:

McKENNA et al. 6008 Friends Avenue

Whittier, California 90601-3724 (562) 696-3852

[email protected]

Author and Principal Investigator: Jeanette A. McKenna, MA/RPA/HonDL with contributions by: Cynthia Ayala

Job No. 10-20-01-2095 January 5, 2021

mailto:[email protected]

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

LOCATION AND SETTING ...................................................................................... 1

CULTURE HISTORY BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 7

Prehistory ............................................................................................................ 7

The Historic Period ............................................................................................. 10

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 17

PREVIOUS RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 19

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................... 22

APN-14 (14835 San Bernardino Avenue) ........................................................... 22

APN-15 (14869 San Bernardino Avenue) ........................................................... 22

APN-16 (9734 Live Oak Avenue) ........................................................................ 25



EVALUATION CRITERIA ......................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 33

Paleontological Resources .................................................................................. 33

Native American Consultation ............................................................................. 34

Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 34

Built Environment(s) ........................................................................................... 34

Historic Landscapes ........................................................................................... 35

Ethnic Resources ............................................................................................... 35

MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................... 35

CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................... 37

ii

Page

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 38

APPENDICES

A. Professional Qualifications ............................................................................ A-1

B. Archaeological Records Search .................................................................... B-1

C. Native American Consultation ....................................................................... C-1

D. Paleontological Overview .............................................................................. D-1

E. Supplemental Research Data ........................................................................ E-1

F. Photographic Record ..................................................................................... F-1

G. California DPR-523 Forms ............................................................................. G-1

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. General Location of the Project Area ............................................................. 2

2. Specific Location of the Project Area ............................................................. 4

3. Assessor Parcel Map Illustrating the Project Area ......................................... 5

4. Aerial Photograph Illustrating the Current Conditions

within the Project Area ................................................................................... 6

5. Cave Map of 1892 Illustrating Ownership of Section 23 ................................. 12

6. Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company Subdivision May, Filed

In 1891, Illustrating the Placement of Lot 907 ................................................ 13

7. Subdivision Map of Lot 907, ca. 1929 ............................................................ 13

8. Aerial Photograph of 1938 Illustrating Improvements in

the OFT Project Area ..................................................................................... 14

9. Structures Remaining within the Project Area (Ca. 2018) ............................. 17

10. Overview of Parcel -14, from San Bernardino Avenue,

Fontana, CA ................................................................................................. 23

11. Commercial Structure at 14869 San Bernardino Avenue,

Fontana, CA .................................................................................................. 24

12. Door on North Elevation ................................................................................ 25

13. Door on South Elevation ................................................................................ 25

14. East Elevation of 9734 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA ................................ 26

15. Aerial View of 9734 Live Oak Avenue Illustrating

Alterations and Additions ............................................................................... 27

iv

Page

16. Aerial View of 9790 Live Oak Avenue, Illustrating Residence

and Two Garages .......................................................................................... 28

17. Residence and Garage at 9790 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA .................. 29

18. Residence at 9762 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA ...................................... 30

19. Garage at 9762 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA ........................................... 31

v

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Refined Coastal Chronology as Defined by Mason

and Peterson (1994) ...................................................................................... 10

2. Cultural Resources Studies Completed within One Mile

of the Project Area ......................................................................................... 20

3. Resources Identified within One Mile of the Project Area .............................. 21

Job No. 20.2095 OFT Construction Equipment Yard, Fontana, CA Page 1

A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION

OF THE PROPOSED OFT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT YARD, SAN BERNARDINO

AVENUE AT LIVE OAK AVENUE, SAN BERNARDINO CO.,

CALIFORNIA

by:

Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal McKenna et al., Whittier CA

INTRODUCTION McKenna et al. (Appendix A) initiated these cultural resources investigations of the pro-posed OFT Construction Equipment Yard near Fontana, unincorporated San Bernardino County, California, at the request of Lilburn Corporation, San Bernardino County, Califor-nia. The project area consists of numerous parcels on the southwest corner of San Ber-nardino Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. The project area is currently occupied by single family residential properties and commercial properties. Only one of the residential prop-erties is currently occupied. This phase I study has been completed as partial fulfillment of the California Environmen-tal Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, in preparation for future commercial development. This report was also prepared in a format consistent with the requirements for compliance with the data requirements of the Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, San Ber-nardino County, and the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal In-formation Center. The primary goals of a Phase I cultural resources investigation is to identify cultural re-sources within a given project area; provide a preliminary assessment of the resources, and provide recommendations for the treatment of such resources with respect to the proposed undertaking/project.

LOCATION AND SETTING The current project area is located on the southwest corner of San Bernardino Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1).


Figure 1. General Location of the Project Area.


This area is within Township 1 South, Range 6 West, Section 23 (NE ¼ of NW ¼; Figure 2) and involves five parcels (Figure 3), including:

APN Size Modern Description 0234-121-14-0000 4.2 ac. STL&W Co. SBL W ½ E ½ Lot 907 ex W 140 ft N 180

ft 4.20 ac. 0234-121-15-0000 1 ac. (+/-) STL&W Co. SBL N 175 ft N ½ E ½ E ½ Lot 907 ex.

sts. 0234-121-16-0000 1.28 ac. STL&W Co. SBL N ½ E ½ E ½ Lot 907 ex N 175 ft

1.28 ac. 0234-121-18-0000 1.14 ac. STL&W Co. SBL S ½ S ½ E ½ E ½ Lot 907 1.14 ac. 0234-121-19-0000 1.14 ac. STL&W Co. SBL N ½ S ½ E ½ E ½ Lot 907 1.14 ac.

These parcels have all been improved. Parcels -14 and -15 are commercial properties while those fronting Live Oak Avenue (APNs -016, -018, and -019) are residential prop-erties. At the time of this investigation, only the APN -016 was still occupied. The com-mercial properties are being used for equipment storage and have temporary office trail-ers within APN-014. The street addresses for the properties have been confirmed as:

APN -14 14835 San Bernardino Avenue (Commercial) APN -15 14869 San Bernardino Avenue (Commercial) APN -16 9734 Live Oak Avenue (Residential) APN -18 9790 Live Oak Avenue (Residential) APN -19 9762 Live Oak Avenue (Residential)

Illustrated in Figure 4, the properties (3 of the 5 parcels) were previously dominated by a boxed nursery operation. In addition, a structure north of the residence on Parcel -19 was demolished before this investigation was initiated. As noted, this project area is located within Township 1 South, Range 6 West, Section 23. This particular area is outside the boundaries of any historic Spanish or Mexican period rancho but cross-referenced as being within Lot 907 of the “Semi-Tropic Land & Water Company” lands. The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company (STL&W Co.) was a major land holding the dominated the areas now general associate with Fontana, Rialto, Bloomington, and San Sevaine. This area is illustrated on the USGS Fontana Quadrangle (see Figure 2) and is generally considered to be on the floodplain of Lytle Creek (north/northwest of the project area. Drover (1979) characterized the area as part of the Peninsular Range geologic province with granitic outcrops and occasional pools of standing water. Citing Drover (1979:3-4),


Figure 2. Specific Location of the Project Area (USGS Fontana Quadrangle, rev. 2018).


Figure 3. Assessor Parcel Map Illustrating the Project Area. the native soils are described as “... decomposing granite and are relatively shallow, ero-sion cuts showing two feet in depth with more significant gradation in the valley bottoms. Some basalt outcrops are also present, rock thereof showing thermal cracking from local brush fires some of which appear to have occurred recently.” Gray (1961:57) noted ma-rine sedimentation occurred in the early Miocene and probably continued into the Plio-cene epochs, resulting in the formation of the Santa Ana Mountains. Flooding relief was moderate, but erosion continues to carve deep cuts resulting in the surrounding landforms (McKenna 1988:7). Geological testing was completed in Fontana by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1988) has dated the older alluvium in the area to ap-


proximately 25,000 years B.P. (before present). Additional data indicated the surface areas continued to erode while the substrate remains relatively intact.

Figure 4. Aerial Photograph Illustrating the Current Conditions

within the Project Area.


The Desert Sage Scrub habitat, characterized by the presence of buck-wheat, sage, and deer weed, would have been present, but has been replaced by grasses, ice plants along the freeway slopes, and a few pepper trees. Buckwheat is still evident (see Bean and Saubel 1972; Mead 1972; Drover 1979; and ARMC 1980). The removal of native vege-tation may be attributed to both historic and modern impacts to the property. This portion of San Bernardino County is reported to have been considerably different during prehistoric times (Bissell 1993:3-4). Petrified cypress have been recovered from the nearby Puente Hills (R. Reynolds 1994, Personal Communication) and Heusser (1978) postulated pines may have once covered the general area between 10,000 and 6000 B.C. These dates are synonymous with the Early Prehistoric Horizon (pre 6000 B.C.) currently accepted by Southern California archaeologists. A shift in weather condi-tions (i.e. warmer weather) resulted in the replacement of pines with oak woodland and, eventually, grasslands. According to Heusser (1978), the grasslands were replaced by sage scrub and chaparral during the Late Prehistoric Horizon (post A.D. 750). Natural resources available to prehistoric (and historic) populations can be found within a relatively short distance of the current project area – in the San Gabriel and San Ber-nardino Mountains, Lylte Creek, and other associated blue-line drainages. These include the resources associated with the nearby Coastal Communities (i.e. saltwater estuaries, beach and coastal strand habitats, and the marine community). Riparian woodlands, freshwater marsh lands, grasslands, oak woodlands, additional scrub communities, and chaparral can all be identified in the general area. Studies of a basin identified south and west of the current project area yielded archaeological data addressing the presence of a freshwater marsh/estuary exploited by prehistoric populations (McKenna 1992).

CULTURE HISTORY BACKGROUND

- Prehistory - The current project area is located in an ethnographic area associated with both the Ga-brielino (Tongva) of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Rio Hondo, and Santa Ana River drain-age (roughly Los Angeles and western San Bernardino and Riverside Counties) of today (McCawley 1996:23; Kroeber 1925:621; and Bean and Smith 1978:538), and the Serrano of northwestern Riverside and southwestern San Bernardino Counties. McCawley (1996:55), in his recently published volume on the Gabrielinos, ascribes the Gabrielino territory to include the current project area, although others would assign the area to Ser-rano or Luiseno territory – and possibly, Cahuilla. It is essentially a crossroads where all four Native American populations overlap. McCawley asserts that the ethnographic Gabrielinos, his “first Angelinos”, were not the same culture that first inhabited the area (1996:1), a premise which is gaining strength in the archaeological community. A paper presented at the Natural Resources in the Puente Hills-Chino Hills Corridor Symposium: Implications for Land Use and Planning (McKenna (1995) presented this same argument. The Gabrielino, as currently defined, are recog-


nized as a society identified by Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic ethnographic records and archaeological data identifying Late Prehistoric occupation of Southern California. Changes identified between the earlier periods and the Late Prehistoric Period are evi-dent in the archaeological record and in variations seen in technologies, social/community patterns and, in some cases, population estimates. Populations preceding the “Gabrielino,” while related, can be identified as separate or variant forms of the Gabrielino culture, but originating with the Gabrielino. As such, there is little evidence to separate the Gabrielino/Tongva from their surrounding relatives (i.e. the Serrano or Luiseno), except by geographical association with the various Mission. In this case, the term “Gabrielino” is a reference derived from the Spanish Mission Period and reflect Mission settlement associations (Mission San Gabriel de Arcangel), not pre-historic kinship, a lack of kinship, societal commonality or variation. Early studies of the Southern California Native populations emphasized anthropological and/or ethnographic studies (see Smith and Taggart 1909; Benedict 1924; Bolton 1927; Robinson 1939; and Kroeber 1925). More recently, however, the investigations of the Gabrielino have relied on archaeological data (i.e. Drover 1980; Drover, Koerper, and Langenwalter 1983; McKenna 1985 and 1986; Hudson 1969 and 1971; Rice and Cottrell 1976; Wallace 1955; Warren 1968; Greenwood 1978; and Mason et al. 1994; etc.; also see McKenna 2017). Additional studies have been presented in association with the So-ciety for California Archaeology, presenting updated information on Southern California in general. The Native American populations utilized numerous plants and animals for food, shelter, and medicines. Citing Kroeber (1976:649-650), they used seeds most often, followed by foliage, shoots, fruits, and berries. Mountain shrubs, ash, elder, and willow were used for shelters and tool materials (e.g. bows). Over twenty plants were used regularly for me-dicinal purposes. Fauna used as food sources included deer, rabbits, wood rats, squir-rels, quail, and ducks. Animals specifically not used were dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles (Kroeber 1976:652). Along the coast, the people regularly exploited the wetlands and ocean resources. They used numerous styles of bows, bedrock mortars, portable mortars, pipes, chisels, me-tates, manos, and various forms of chipped stone tools. Prior to the establishment of the Mission system, populations tended to live in larger villages with a series of "daughter" or "satellite" sites (limited activity areas) with lesser populations. Seasonal migration was practiced for the exploitation of resources and protection from seasonal weather condi-tions (Scientific Resource Surveys 1979:7). Cooking was generally conducted outdoors with hearths within structures usually used for heat. Archaeological data and correlations with ethnographic data have resulted in the deter-mination of a chronology for Southern California prehistoric times. Data provided by Wal-


lace (1955), Warren (1968) and later by Koerper and Drover (1983) and Mason (1984; summarized in McKenna 1986). The chronology generally accepted for Southern Cali-fornia coastal sites is as follows:

Early Man Horizon: Pre-dating 6,000 B.C.; is characterized by the presence of large projectile points and scrapers, suggesting a reliance on hunting ra-ther than gathering; Milling Stone Horizon: 6,000 to 1,000 B.C.; characterized by the presence of hand stones, milling stones, choppers, and scraper planes; tools associ-ated with seed gathering and shell fish processing with limited hunting ac-tivities; evidence of a major shift in the exploitation of natural resources; Intermediate Horizon: 1,000 B.C. to A.D. 750; reflects the transitional period between the Milling Stone and the Late Prehistoric Horizons; little is known of this time period, but evidence suggests interactions with outside groups and a shift in material culture reflecting this contact; Late Prehistoric Horizon: A.D. 750 to European Contact; characterized by the presence of small projectile points; use of the bow and arrow; steatite containers and trade items, asphaltum; cremations; grave goods; mortars and pestles; and bedrock mortars.

Investigations and analyses of sites in the Newport Bay/Irvine area of Orange County (Mason and Peterson 1994) have yielded significant data resulting in refinements of the Coastal Chronology. Their conclusions were based on the radiocarbon dates from 326 samples representing thirty-one archaeological sites or cultural contexts. Summarizing their results, Mason and Peterson (1994:55) found that the majority of sites were occupied during the Milling Stone (Horizon) period or the Late Prehistoric (Horizon) period “... with-out much overlap ...”. Only four sites yielded results suggesting occupation during more than one cultural period (i.e. CA-ORA-64). In a few instances, dates suggested occupation during the Intermediate (Horizon) period. Mixtures of dates appeared in limited areas and could be directly associated with areas of agricultural activities. The frequency distribution of radiocarbon dates from the Mason and Peterson investigations were grouped in blocks of fifty-year intervals and yielded a range from of dates from 200 B.P. (before present) to 9280 B.P. (dates from CA-ORA-246 indicate occupation of the Newport Bay area as early as the Paleo-Coastal period or (Early Man Horizon). Mason and Peterson’s conclusions (1994:57) do not necessarily change the basic chronology but distinguish more individualistic periods of occupation that are not necessarily evident in the analysis of an artifact assemblage. Their refined chronology is presented in Table 1.


The Mason and Peterson chronology emphasizes that the definition of sites by artifact assemblage, as used to established earlier chronologies, is still valid. However, with the modern technology and site dating techniques, site occupations can be more definitively ascertained and such studies have resulted in determining that Milling Stone and Late Prehistoric sites are relatively discrete.

Table 1. Refined Coastal Chronology as Defined by Mason and Peterson (1994).

Cultural Horizons Defined 1986 Cultural Periods Redefined 1994 Temporal Correlations

Paleo-Coastal Pre-6000 B.C. Paleo-Coastal Pre-8000 B.P. Pre-6000 B.C.

Milling Stone 6000 to 1000 B.C.

Milling Stone 1 8000 to 5800 B.P. 6000 to 3800 B.C.



Intermediate 1000 B.C. to A.D.

750 Intermediate 3000 to 1350 B.P. 1000 B.C. to A.D. 650

Late Prehistoric A.D. 750 to Euro-

pean Contact

Late Prehistoric 1 1350 to 650 B.P. A.D. 650 to 1350

Late Prehistoric 2 650 to 200 B.P. A.D. 1350 to Contact

Variations appear within these two generalized periods which can be explained by tem-porally discrete assemblages and occupations. Future studies of sites yielding statisti-cally valid artifact assemblages and radiocarbon samples can be conducted to further the under-standing of Native American activities in this area of Southern California and in understanding the relative lack of data for the Intermediate Horizon/ period.

- The Historic Period - The earliest known records of European contact with Southern California Native Ameri-cans date to the mid-1500s, representing minor contact during early explorations by the Spanish. Intensive contact was not established until the 1770s, when Father Garces traversed the Mojave Desert and entered coastal Southern California through the Cajon Pass (Walker 1986). In the 1770s, the Spanish padres, under the direction of Junipero Serra, began the process of establishing a series of missions throughout Alta California, as California was then known. Noted earlier, the project area is within the boundaries of lands held by the Mission San Gabriel de Archangel. The mission continued to hold these large tracts until the Mexican government declared its independence from Spain and issued orders for the secularization of the Missions (ca.


1824). By 1833-34, the majority of Mission lands were reclaimed from the Catholic Church and issued to individuals who had served as Spanish or Mexican soldiers, set-tlers, financiers, etc. The Mexican government hoped to initiate a pattern of settlement in Alta California by relocating populations from other Mexican settlements to recently es-tablished Alta California settlements (Hanna 1951; McWilliams 1973; Dumke 1944; and Scott 1977). Maps provided by Avina (1932); the Bureau of Land Management; and Beck and Haase (1977) illustrate the extent of the Rancho/Grant system. In this case, the project area is outside the boundaries of any identified rancho and, there-fore, following the acquisition of California by the United States, the area was mapped and opened to sale, homestead, and/or trade. Although outside the boundaries of Fon-tana (proper), the area is associated with Fontana and major roadways in Fontana extend through this area. Gudde (1998:188) describes Fontana:

“Fontana. [San Bernardino Cos.]. A town was laid out here by the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company in the “boom year” 1887, but it failed to develop. Before 1905 the Fontana Development Company bought the in-terests, and a new town was started by A.B. Miller, under the name of Rosena. It is uncertain whether the company took its name from a family or from the Spanish poetical work for ‘fountain.’ In 1913 the name Rosena was changed to Fontana in a solemn ceremony, Judge B.F. Bledsoe pre-siding and Mrs. E.B. Miller, mother of the “father of Fontana,” officiating.

The current project area is located within the boundaries of the vast holdings of A.J. (An-drew Jackson) Pope, which date back before ca. 1869. Pope purchased a total of 3,840 acres of land within Township 1 South, Ranch 6 West, including all or portions of Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (Figure 5). A.J. Pope was a native of Maine who arrived in California in the early 1850s, settling in the San Francisco Bay area. He, along with a business partner, were involved in significant lumbering activities in Northern California, Oregon, and Washing states, while maintaining their corporate offices in San Francisco. With his personal funding, A.J. Pope began investing in land in Southern California, but not in an area known for lumbering. Rather, the area was at the very early stages of becoming a major citrus growing region. A.J. Pope never lived in Southern California and never improved any of his holding in San Bernardino County. Rather, he remained in San Francisco and raised his family there. Research confirmed his birth in 1920 (East Machias, Washington County, Maine) and his marriage to Emily Foster (1820), also of East Machias, in 1853. Both were considered “colonial families.” The moved to California after their marriage and their children were all born in California, including: 1855 Infant son (died almost immediately after birth) 1857 Florence Talbot Pope (d. 1907 in London, England)


1860 Charles Pope (d. 1862) 1863 Mary Ella Pope (married Daniel T. Murphy; no children) 1865 George Andrew Pope (married Eliza Taylor; 3 children)

As listed, the Popes had five children. Two died young; one died at 50; and the two re-maining were a daughter and son – Mary and George. Only George had children. All resided in the San Francisco area and there is no evidence any ever ventured to the San Bernardino County properties. Andrew Jackson Pope died in 1878 (58 years of age) and Emily Pope died in 1906. She died two months prior to the San Fran-cisco earthquake of 1906. George A. Pope died in San Francisco in 1942 (77 years of age), still owning the land in Southern Cal-ifornia. His widow and surviving son would have been responsible for the future of these holdings and eventually sold the acreage to the Semi-Tropic Land and Wa-ter Company.

The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated 1887 and purchased the majority of land within the Lytle Creek floodplain, including the areas now associated with Fontana, Rialto, and Bloomington (Samuel L. Merrill, President; Joseph L. Merrill, Secre-tary). Research completed at the San Bernardino County Archives confirmed the current project area (and surrounding acres; once owned by A.J. Pope) were incorporated into the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company holdings by 1895 – identified as being within Lot 907 (Figure 6). Manning Avenue was eventually renamed as San Bernardino Avenue. Lot 907 was bounded by Manning Avenue (San Bernardino Avenue) to the north, Live Oak Avenue to the east, and Redwood Avenue to the west. These lots averaged 20 acres each and were designed for light agricultural uses. Assessor data confirmed Lot 907 was owned by the Fontana Land Company between 1917 and 1925 (possibly as early as 1915). The Fontana Land Company was essentially the successor of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company. The Fontana Land Com-pany was founded in 1915-1916 and continued the practice of selling lots within the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company subdivision. In this case, the earliest post-Pope and Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company ownership within Lot 907 occurred in 1923, when

Figure 5. Cave Map of 1892 Illustrating Ownership of Section 23.


the Fontana Union Water Company purchased a portion of the Lot. The Water Company purchased a 100 foot by 100 foot piece of land in the western half of the lot – described as being located 330.08 feet east of the centerline of Redwood Avenue, the extending 100 ft east, 100 feet north, and 100 feet west to point of beginning. This purchase is illustrated on the 1929 map of the Lot 907 subdivision (Figure 7).

Figure 6. Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company Subdivision Map, Filed in 1891, Illustrating the Placement of Lot 907.

Figure 7. Subdivision Map of Lot 907, ca. 1929.


In 1926, M.C. Murane purchased the remainder of Lot 907. His land was assessed at $750 to $900 in 1926-1927, respectively, and he was assessed at $200 in trees/vines. No structural improvements were listed. In 1928, the property was listed under M.C. (Millard Cornelius) and Inez Murane. They remained only a short time, relocating to Carob Street, Bloomington, by 1929-1930. Millard Murane was listed as a poultry farmer in the 1930 census records, living with his family on Carob Street. In 1929, the Fontana Land Company had reclaimed the majority of Lot 907, selling a small portion (western 5 acres; 4.33 after the easement for Redwood Avenue widening) to L.L. Vroman. The current project area is in the eastern half of the lot which, in 1929, was first subdivided (see Figure 8). With minor acreage adjustments for road development, Assessor data for the eastern half of Lot 907 identified the following owners and dates of purchase after 1929:

1931-1933 N ½ of E ½ of E ½ Merle F. and Emma B. Moore (2.88 acres) (APNs -15 and -16) 1932-1934 W ½ of E ½ Security First Nat’l. Bank of LA (4.33 acres) (APN -14) 1932 S ½ of E ½ of E ½ Security First Nat’l. Bank of LA (2.28 acres) (APNs -18 and -19) 1933 S ½ of E ½ of E ½ C.D. and Ella M. Feller (2.28 acres) (APNs -18 and -19) 1934-1939 S ½ of E ½ of E ½ C.C. Woodfill and D. Woodard (2.28 acres) (APNs -18 and -19)

Parcels -15 and -16 No improvements were listed for the Security First Nat’l. Bank of LA prop-erties, but the Moores registered a structural improvement in 1932 ($260 to $350). Illustrated in Figure 8, these improvements were identi-fied southwest of the intersection of San Bernardino Avenue and Live Oaks Avenue – fronting San Bernar-dino Avenue and not identified as a residential improvement. Rather, the improvements appear to be related to a use area associated with the re-cently planted citrus grove.

Figure 8. Aerial Photograph of 1938 Illustrating Improvements in the OFT Project Area.


By 1934, with the modest improvements and existing orchard, the Moore property also reverted to the Fontana Land Company and/or the Security Nat’l. Bank of Los Angeles. In 1944, the Bank sold the northern 2.28 acres to George and Ellen Frisby (aka Frisbie) who, in 1945, sold to Gordon W. and Althea B. Hawley. The Hawleys subdivided the property in 1946 (N and S halves), selling the northern 1 acre to the “Trojan Tackle Corp.” In 1947, credited with the commercial building constructed on the property (14639 San Bernardino Avenue) and the southern 1.28 acres to George H. and Phyllis Dealymenos, who constructed a small residence (9734 Live Oak Avenue; 1948). Trojan Tackle Corp. owned their property through 1951 (likely much later), as did the Dealymenos. Directories show the Dealymenos family relocated by 1956 (to Arrow Route). The property was owned by Gilbert M. and Rosemarie Murrietta between 1982 and 1989; the KB & T Truck Company from 1900 to 2006; and the Ottings after 2007. APNs -18 and -19 With respect to the southern 2.28 acre property (now APNs -18 and -19, fronting Live Oak Avenue), the 1932-1933 residential improvements are credited to C.D. and Ella Feller, sold to Woodfill and Woodard in 1934, and Dennis H. and Elsie C. Peterson in 1939. The street address is 6762 Live Oak Avenue. The subsequent owners/occupants of 6762 Live Oak Avenue include: 1943 Dewey W. and Letha A. Marshall 1944-1947 H.W. and Rose Scheffler 1948-1949 P.A. and E. Fox (½) and C. and C. Reims (½) 1950-1951 C.E. and Helen M. Peterson (no relation) Historic aerial photographs illustrate the residential complex at 6762 Live Oak Avenue, amidst the orchard development, by 1948. By 1959, the orchard is gone and the residen-tial improvements are complemented by the presence of elongated structures along the northern property boundary – indicative of orchard sheds/boxing areas (APN -19). Carl E. (1895-1976) and Helen M. (1990-1997) Peterson (with their daughter, Eva) lived on the property until Carl’s death in 1976. Helen M. Peterson remained until 1989, before selling to Anthony M., Harry J., and Laura Otting Dunn, the current owners. The Peter-son’s referred to their property as “Green Acres.” During the Carl and Helen Peterson ownership (by 1966), the property was subdivided into northern and southern halves). While the northern property was improved by 1932-1933, the southern half was not im-proved until 1959 (9790 Live Oak Avenue; APN -18). Redfin Real Estate records (2020) describe the improvements as:

“9790 Live Oak Ave is a house in Fontana, CA 92335. This 1,552 square foot house sits on a 1.1 acre lot and features 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.


9790 Live Oak Ave was built in 1959 and last sold for $470,000. Based on Redfin's Fontana data, we estimate the home's value is $513,601… This address can also be written as 9790 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, California 92335.”

Carl (aka Karl) Peterson was a native of Holland who arrived in the United States in 1920. He married Helen and, in 1940, was living in Chicago and identified as a carpenter. He purchased the property on Live Oak Avenue in 1950 and remained until his death in 1976. Helen stayed until 1989. As such, the 1959 improvements have been credited to the Petersons, likely as an investment, as by 1962, the residence was occupied (and even-tually owned) by Fred and Bonnie Segna (1962 until 2019). The Segnas sold to the Ot-tings in 2019. APN -14 APN -14 is cross-referenced as 14835 San Bernardino Avenue and was originally a 5-acre parcel following the subdivision of Lot 907 (STL&W Co.). With the minor adjustment for road widening, the 4.78 acre property was first identified in 1929 with land values, but no improvements. With the exception of associations with the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company, the Fontana Land Company, and the Security First Nat’l. Bank of LA, the first privately reported ownership dates to 1946 (Jesse J. and Nora B. Hayes. In 1947, Hayes sold to Max, George, and Kate Wishniak. Little was found on the Wishniaks other than they lived on San Bernardino Avenue (no house number listed), but the family relo-cated to Foothill Blvd. by 1954. Max Wishniak (1897-1959) is buried in Lake Elsinore, Riverside County. The two small residences location on the northwestern corner of this property (not a part of this project area) appear after 1948 and, according to real estate records, date to 1952 (14815 San Bernardino Avenue) and 1959 (14805 San Bernardino Avenue), respectively. As such, the 1952 residence has tentatively been associated with the Wishniak family, but the 1959 residence post-dates the Wishniaks. These two properties were identified at the time the other parcels were eventually identified as independent properties – around 1946-1948. The remainder of APN -14 was never associated with a standing structure but the 1959 and 1966 aerial photos show surface disturbances. Much later, by 1994, the area is dominated by the box nursery (which extends into the properties along Live Oak Avenue. Owners between 1982 and 2020 include: 1982-1985 Francis G. Weldon and Harry W. Otting 1986-2005 KB & T Truck Company and Harry W. Otting 2006 KB & T Trucking Co., Harry W. Otting, and KH Family Trust 2007-2020 OFT Family Trust Corp., Harry W. Otting, and KH Family Trust


Summary In summary, there are five parcels com-prising the project area. Improvements within the five parcels date to the follow-ing: 0234-121-14 No structural im- improvements present 0234-121-15 1947 “Trojan Tackle Corp” commercial building 0234-121-16 1948 Gordon W. and Althea B. Hawley 0234-121-18 1959 Carl and Helen Peterson 0234-121-19 1932 C.D. and Ella Feller

Over the course of many years, other improvements illustrated on the aerial photographs and maps were removed and the actual uses of the properties changed. The more significant used in-cluded the development of the box nursery and the trucking company activ-ities. The four remaining standing struc-tures (Figure 9) represent the existing improvements.

Figure 9. Structures Remaining within the Project Area (ca. 2018).

METHODOLOGY The methodology for a Phase I cultural resources investigation is designed to provide basic information on the locations and types of resources within a defined project area. In the case of the current project area, the basic tasks were completed to compile the necessary information to address the cultural resources in the area. This approach in-cluded the following:

14869 San Bernardino Avenue 9734 Live Oak Avenue Demolished Structure 9762 Live Oak Avenue 9790 Live Oak Avenue


Task 1: Archaeological Records Check: A standard archaeological records check was completed through the California State University, Fuller-ton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California (Appendix B). The CSUF-ACCIC provides information on previously surveyed properties, site records, some historic maps, and copies of all pertinent reports.

Task 2: Native American Consultation: McKenna et al. contacted the Native

American Heritage Commission in Sacramento and acquired the most current listing for Native American representatives within San Bernar-dino County. Letters were sent to all listed individuals and McKenna et al. also personally contacted Anthony Morales of the Gabrielino/ Tongva to inquire into sensitivity for the area. All responses have been attached in Appendix C and discussed later in this report.

Task 3. Paleontological Overview: the paleontological overview was obtained

from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Appendix D) and supplemented with information drawn from research materials provided by Dr. S. McLeod for other nearby projects.

Task 4: Historic Research: Historic research was conducted to determine the

land-use history of the properties in question. This research was com-pleted to provide preliminary data for the identification of any historic resources which might be encountered during the field studies. COVID-19 restrictions limited some of the research, but McKenna et al. was able to compile data from the San Bernardino County Hall of Records; San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office; San Bernardino County Archives; the Bureau of Land Management General Land Of-fice records; the UCR Historic Map Library; local historical society rec-ords; on-line research sites; general history volumes for this area of San Bernardino County; and information from the McKenna et al. in-house library and files. Supplemental research data is provided in Ap-pendix E.

Task 5. Field Investigations: The field survey was completed over the course

of two days: October 7 and November 13, 2020. These surveys were completed by Jeanette A. McKenna, MA/RPA/HonDL, Principal Inves-tigator for McKenna et al., with the assistance of Cynthia Ayala (B.A. in prep.) In this case, the property was identified by street frontage landmarks and accompanying consultants from Lilburn Corporation. The nature of the properties and uses prohibited systematic surveying, so the properties were addressed in an arbitrary manner, accessing all areas available to visual examination. The October site visit allowed for a visual examination of more open areas while the November site visit was designed to address the standing structures. The field sur-


veys were supplemented by a photographic record (Appendix E) and field notes (on file, McKenna et al.).

Task 6. Analysis of Data Compiled: All data compiled during the course of

these investigations were used to ascertain the level of sensitivity for the project area to yield evidence of potentially significant cultural re-sources. Specific approaches to analysis were designed in accord-ance with the nature of the resources (paleontological, archaeological, or buildings/structures).

Task 7: Preparation of a Technical Report: This technical report has been pre-

pared in a format recommended by the Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, and the CSUF-SCCIC.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH A standard archaeological record search was conducted at the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center in Fullerton, California. This research was completed on October 27, 2020 (see Appendix B). This search included a review of all projects and recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project area. In addition, historic maps and listings for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the listing of California Historical Land-marks ( CHL), the California Register of Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) have been checked for the referenced project. Supplemental research included a review of historic maps and aerial photographs. This research confirmed the current project area was NOT previously surveyed for cul-tural resources. A minimum of nineteen (19) studies were identified within the research area (Table 2). As a result of these studies, a minimum of thirty-five (35) cultural re-sources have been recorded (Table 3). As listed, all identified resources were identified as historic period resources, including standing structures, commercial and residential structures, railroad alignment(s), and his-toric refuse deposit(s). No isolated finds were reported. None of the historic period re-sources are within the current project area. Likewise, no paleontological resources were reported. No prehistoric archaeological resources were reported. With respect to paleontological resources, the project area is located on an alluvial fan consisting of deep deposits of recent alluvium derived from the Lytle Creek drainage – in some areas estimated to be hundreds of feet deep (Leighton and Associates 1988). McLeod (2015) concluded the project area is not sensitive for paleontological resources, but extremely deep excavations impacting the older alluvium may yield such resources.


Table 2. Cultural Resources Studies Completed within One Mile of the Project Area.

NADB Citation Description Resources

1061501 Mason 1985 Etiwanda Pipeline

1062919 Alexandrowicz & Alexandrowicz 1994 Slover @ Cherry Yes

1063063 Sturm, Monk, & Strudwick 1995 Kaiser Steel Mill Yes

1063175 McKenna, Shepard, & Shattuck 1997 TTM 15677

1063604 Stone 1997 Wilkins Ranch

1064252 Duke 2001 Cell Tower Site

1064260 McKenna 2003 FUSD #28 Site

1064264 McKenna 2004 Cell Tower Site

1064265 Brandman 2005 Cell Tower Site

1064873 Encarnacion 2005 S.B. Avenue Pipeline

1065420 Tang, Taylor & Ballester 2006 Wineville Pipeline Yes

1065970 Bonner and Aislin-Kay 2008 Cell Tower Site

1066918 Mason et al. 2010 S.B. Avenue Imp. Yes

1066980 Wlodarski 2011 Cell Tower Site

1068042 Tang and Hogan 2016 Single Line Express Yes

1068102 Brunzell 2014 Wilcox Project

1068186 Fulton 2015 Cell Tower Site

1068194 McKenna 2016 TEC Equipment Yard

1068245 Roland 2015 Cell Tower Site

The more recent paleontological review prepared by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Bell 2020) resulted in negative findings. The nearest reported fossil finds were reported in Chino Valley, Corona, and Chino Hills. All were recovered from contexts more the nine feet below the present ground surfaces in their respective areas. Overall, the current project area is not considered sensitive for the presence of fossil specimens. Based on the data presented above, the current project area is considered to have the following levels of sensitivity for cultural resource.

Paleontological Resources LOW Prehistoric Archaeological Resources LOW

Prehistoric Archaeological Isolates LOW Historic Archaeological Resources LOW Historic Archaeological Isolates LOW Built Environment(s) – Structures HIGH Historic Landscapes LOW Ethnic Resources LOW


Table 3. Resources Identified within One Mile of the Project Area.

Primary No. Citation Description Status

36-004131 Hansbarger 1975; Teal 1980; McLean 1997; and Ballester 2008

Kaiser Steel Plant CPHI-71

36-007426 Brock 1993 Branch Line

36-007795 ACS 1994 Historic Complex/Ruins

36-009862 Cotterman & Chandler 1999 Gasoline Station

36-010330 Paul 2012; Tibbet 2010; Harper 2008; Goodwin 2002; Ashkar 1999

Southern Pacific Railroad

36-012227 Daly 2005 10221 Redwood Avenue

36-015288 Anonymous 1996 9733 Beech Avenue

36-020009 Triem 2000 10227 Cherry Avenue

36-020010 Triem 2000 14560 Washington Drive


36-020012 Triem 2000 10287 Redwood Avenue

36-020013 Triem 2000 10286 Redwood Avenue



















36-023214 Cotterman 2010 14586 San Bernardino Ave.

36-023215 Cotterman 2010 Strunk House

36-029643 Jacquemain 2016 14755 Slover Avenue

36-031716 Hogan 2017 Historic Refuse

36-031717 Ballester 2018 Farm/Ranch, Sequoia Ave.


RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS

At the time of the surface survey of the OFT Construction Equipment Yard project area was dominated by the present of stored and active construction equipment and supplies, standing residences, one commercial structure, and some open use areas for planned equipment storage. In addition, there were a few modern office trailers (APN-14) and fencing around much of the project area. The field survey confirmed a lack of any evidence of paleontological resources and/or prehistoric archaeological resources. Research confirmed the project area was owned as early as 1869, having been purchased along with other acreage by A.J. Pope of San Francisco. After Pope’s death, the property fell to the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Com-pany (Lot 907) and the Fontana Land Company. No improvements were identified for Lot 907 until the Fontana Union Water Company purchased a 100 foot by 100 foot portion of Lot 907 (western half) in 1923. The eastern half was purchased, subdivided, and sold many times after1929. In 1929, the eastern half of Lot 907 (10 acres) was subdivided into three parcels – a 5 acre parcel on the western half of the 10 acres and two 2.5 acre properties fronting Live Oak Avenue. Aerial photos confirmed the two parcels on Live Oak Avenue were planted in trees and some evidence of supporting structures (storage/packing structures, but not residences). Windrows suggest the western 5 acre parcel was prepared for planting, but these acres were never planted in trees. The orchards were removed from the area by 1959. Be-tween 1932 and 1959, the uses and improvements within these properties changed con-siderably.

APN-14 (14835 San Bernardino Avenue) APN-14 is an “L” shaped property with no permanent structures. Two residences are located within the parcels to the west of this property, indicating they were constructed on the property when the parcel was whole, but cut out of the property later, resulting in the “L” shaped property with no structures. Historic aerials indicated the property now asso-ciated with APN-14 was used for some surficial uses (possibly dirt bike or go-kart riding, but no substantial uses. The property was never planted in orchards or subjected to any formal uses until the 1990s, when the box nursery was established. This property is void of any cultural resources (paleontological, archaeological, or built environments). All ev-idence of the box nursery has been eradicated, negating the potential for a historic land-scape. Overall, this parcel is clear of any cultural resources requiring evaluation or as-sessment (Figure 10).

APN-15 (14869 San Bernardino Avenue) APN-15 is a 1 acre (+/-) lot on the southwestern corner of Live Oak Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue (14869 San Bernardino Avenue). This property is accessed via gates on both Avenues. Aerial photographs showed this property was original under orchard


Figure 10. Overview of Parcel -14, from San Bernardino Avenue,

Fontana, CA (S).

development and there were some modest structures (storage/packing houses) on the northern boundary of the property. By 1959, these early structures were replaced by two (possibly three) other structures. Research confirmed the later structures were con-structed in ca. 1947 by the Dealymenos family and were not associated with any orchard activities. Rather, this property was defined by a subdivision completed by the Deal-menos family and the improvements were associated with the commercial activities of the Trojan Tackle Company. At the time of this investigation only one structure remained – the 1947 commercial structure in the western half of the 1-acre property (Figure 11). This structure is rectangular (oriented east/west) with a gable roof design. It is con-structed on a concrete stab with brick walls and some wood siding under the roof peaks. The structure is relatively tall and exhibits steel framed windows near the roof eaves as well as additional windows nearer the floor. These windows are currently covered in se-curity bars (some windows missing) and include both slider and sash designs. The west elevation exhibits two high-placed windows; the north wall has four high-place windows


and one lower window; the east elevation has one high and three low windows; and the south elevation has four high windows.

Figure 11. Commercial Structure at 14869 San Bernardino Avenue,

Fontana, CA (ESE).

The north and south elevations exhibit shallow brick buttresses and doorways. On the north elevation (eastern extent) there is a wide entry with a painted design to suggest the door is a commercial safe (Figure 12). The door on the south elevation (western extent) is a sliding bay door designed for commercial deliveries and shipping (Figure 13). Both doors are framed with steel door jambs but the bay door on the south elevation has been removed and replaced by simple sheets of plywood and security bars. The north elevation also exhibits an eight-foot deep (+/-) concrete slab running along much of the elevation. This porch is covered with a simple shed roof (corrugated metal) with wood framing and supported by round steel posts. The placement and bracketing indicates this porch was added after the completion of the original structure. The area at the north elevation door is not under the porch roof and, in front of the door, there is a roughly poured concrete ramp that allows for wheel/dolly deliveries.

On the south elevation, shed roof had been constructed over the bay door, similar to that on the north elevation and likely built at the same time. This roof, also supported by steel posts, is in poor condition, as is the concrete ramp running up to the bay door.


Figure 12. Door on North Elevation. Figure 13. Door on South Elevation.

Also present on the south elevation is a brick chimney indicating the presence of an inte-rior fireplace (likely for heating and/or as part of the tackle business manufacturing busi-ness). Overall, this structure is a relatively simple commercial structure build in the late 1947s and exhibiting typical design elements consistent with the period of construction: brick walls on a concrete pad; steel framed windows and door frames; a main access door and a secondary supply door. The structure is missing some windows and the orig-inal bay door is no longer present. There have been some modest exterior modifications. The structure is currently vacant and appears to have been abandoned for many years. The painted door was completed in 1996, indicating the property was still in active use in the 1990s, when owned by the Ottings.

APN-16 (9734 Live Oak Avenue)

The residence at 9734 Live Oak Avenue was built in 1948 Gordon W. and Althea B. Hawley. This residence was constructed on the southern half of the property originally defined as a 2.5 acre parcel and subdivided in 1946-1947 by the Dealymenos family. George and Althea Dealymenos are likely responsible for the removal of the orchard on


this northern 2.5 acre property and, when subdivided (with roadway widening and adjust-ments) divided the property into the northern 1 acre and southern 1.28 acres. When originally constructed, the improvements consisted of a rectangular residence and a detached garage (southwest of the residence. There was also another structure on the northwest corner of the property (use undetermined). The windrow remained, defining the southern boundary of the property. But 1994, this rear structure had been demolished and the residence was significantly altered – with additions and incorporation of the gar-age into living space. The Murriettas sold this property to KB & T Trucking Co. in 1990, suggesting many of these alterations may have been completed by the Murriettas and/or Trucking Company. At the time of this investigation the original 1947 Dealmenos residence was identified as a minimal traditional (eclectic) structure on a slightly raised foundation and exhibiting wood framing and both stucco and wide clapboard cladding (Figure 14). The main en-trance is on a small porch on the west elevation (facing Live Oak Avenue) and exhibiting the stucco finish. This stucco extends to the north elevation, where there is a tall chimney but no windows. The main elevation (west elevation) has been altered with a small addi-tion on the southern side of the entrance – with a brick foundation and aluminum framed windows.

Figure 14. East Elevation of 9734 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA (W). The south elevation of this residence is raised and exhibits both a vertical wood skirt below the horizontal wood siding. Here, there are original wood framed windows (in poor condition) and evidence of an addition to the rear (with a shed roof). This elevation is


also attached to a wing extending to the west and indicative of a late and haphazardly constructed addition to the east of the original garage. This addition is stucco sided with aluminum framed windows. An access door is located at the juncture of these two struc-tures. The more complicated elevation is on the west side of this residence, where additions connect the original residence with various additions and the incorporation of the original garage into living space, resulting in an irregular structure (Figure 15) with poor construc-tion, salvaged materials, and significant neglect.

Figure 15. Aerial View of 9734 Live Oak Avenue Illustrating Alterations and Additions.

The Otting family acquired the property at 9734 Live Oak Avenue in 2007. The property has been rented as a residence and was occupied at the time of this investigation. It is in need of significant clean-up and structural maintenance and it is the intension of the owners to renovate this property for continued use as part of the OFT Construction Equip-ment Yard. Given the extent of the alterations and additions to this property, the architectural integrity has been lost. Future alterations or renovations will not result in any adverse environ-mental impacts, as defined in CEQA. A more detail evaluation is presented later in this technical document.


APN-18 (9790 Live Oak Avenue) The residential improvements at APN-18 (9790 Live Oak Avenue) date to 1959 and are attributed to Carl Peterson as an investment and the Segna family as long-term own-ers/occupants of the property. The improvements originally consisted of a single family residence with a detached garage to the northwest of the residence. The garage was accessed via a driveway along the northern property boundary. This drive was aban-doned with the construction of a second garage to the northeast of the residence (with a south facing bay door and additional driveway extending from the southwest of the resi-dence (Figures 16 and 17). The abandoned driveway is now used as a dog run and for storage.

Figure 16. Aerial View of 9790 Live Oak Avenue, Illustrating Residence and Two Garages.

The residence is typical of the later 1950s “contemporary California Ranch” style of archi-tecture. In this case, the residence is rectangular in plan (oriented north/south) with a hipped-gable roof design. It rests on a concrete slab and exhibits a stucco finish and has a covered patio on the west elevation. There is decorative brick on the main elevation, providing relief to the stucco, and aluminum framed windows. There is a chimney on the south elevation, and an outdoor BBQ/sink/serving counting in the rear yard.


At the time of this investigation, the residence was vacant and in a state or renovation for occupancy. The second garage appears to have been added to the property prior to 1966. Both garages are standard two-car garages on concrete pads and with hipped, low-pitched roofs.

Figure 17. Residence and Garage at 9790 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA (W). The improvements at 9790 Live Oak Avenue are very typical of the late 1950s-early 1960s residential construction in California. No unique materials were used in the construction and the plan is average. The residence and garages are not going to be demolished but are being renovated for use as a private residence. Overall, this residential complex represents the most recent improvements to the project area and are not considered to be historically significant. The current renovations will not constitute an adverse environ-mental impact as defined in CEQA.

APN-19 (9762 Live Oak Avenue) The improvements at 9762 Live Oak Avenue represent the oldest residential improve-ments in the project area, dating to 1939. Prior to the construction of the residence there were modest improvements associated with the orchard developments attributed to the Moores. The residence (and garage) were constructed by Dennis and Helen Peterson. When first improved, the street address was 926 S. Live Oak Avenue. The Petersons retained ownership until 1990, when the property was sold to Harry Otting, Jr.


The residence at 9762 S. Live Oak Avenue was originally constructed as a rectangular residence (oriented east/west) with a cross-gable roof line and a main entrance on the east elevation. It would be defined as a California Bungalow with clapboard siding, sash windows, and on a slightly raised foundation. Since its original construction, and while owned by the Petersons, the residence was enlarged with an addition to the east eleva-tion, negating the original entrance and rendering the south elevation the main entry (orig-inally a secondary entrance; Figure 18).

Figure 18. Residence at 9762 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA (WNW). There is another addition to the west elevation, apparently a bathroom and possibly a large closet area. The additions are defined, in part, by double hung sash windows with no window ears, whereas the original residence has double hung sash windows with the ears indicative of the pre-WWII era. Some of the siding appears to have been replaced (or reused, as applicable). The residence is in poor condition and slated for demolition. The garage is a very typical, single car garage dating to the 1930s. This wooden structure is located southwest of the residence and accessed via a asphalt driveway. The garage is on a slab and the access doors are swing hinges doors original to the structure (Figure 19).


Figure 19. Garage at 9762 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA (W). These doors are falling away from the garage. Overall, the garage is a wood framed clapboard structure with an east/west trending gable roof with wooden vents beneath the low-pitched roof. An extended shed roof is on the south elevation and the area is en-closed by modern lattice work. It appears to have been a small potter’s shed and asso-ciated with the use of the area during the potted nursery period of the 1990s. On the north side of the garage, another shed roof has been added and, with the addition of a concrete pad, serves as an open patio area with a picnic table and free-standing BBQ. The roof is attached to the original garage and supported by simple 4 x 4 wooden posts. An elongated window is on the north elevation of the garage, originally providing indirect lighting but interrupted by the construction of the patio roofing. The approach to the garage and the garage, itself, was likely a dirt drive and a dirt floor. The asphalt was added later. Otherwise, the garage appears as originally built and the north and south additions have had a minimal impact. In fact, it is likely these additions have assisted in maintaining the structural integrity by reinforcing the north and south elevations. The improvements on this property include the construction credited to the Petersons and, possibly, some alterations by the Otting family. The alterations and additions to both the residence and garage have altered the original designs for the property and, specif-i


cally with respect to the residence, have adversely impacted the original design of the California Bungalow. The major alterations include the relocation of the original entrance and the loss of the original street-facing elevation. Both the residence and garage are in poor condition and lack architectural integrity, as defined by the federal guidelines.

EVALUATION CRITERIA This investigation has been completed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and the County guidelines and policies for the identifi-cation and protection of significant cultural resources. The criteria mirror those of the federal guidelines (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). As such, to be designated eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (significant or important), a re-source must meet at least one of the criteria listed below.

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of Califor-

nia or the United States;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national

history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method

of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic

values;

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield information important to the pre-

history or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In assessing the resources identified within the current project area, McKenna et al. de-termined the following:

1. The project area was not found to be associated with any events meeting

the intent of Criterion 1. All activities associated with the project area were

determined to be standard for their period of significance (1920s to present)

and not out of the realm for activities in this area of San Bernardino County.

Criterion 1 does not apply.

2. The project area was not found to be associated with any individuals meet-

ing the intent of Criterion 2. The property owners associated with the phys-


ical improvements within the project area were all found to be working class

citizens with occupations and/or activities considered to be standard for the

period of significance (1920s to present) and consistent with this area of

San Bernardino County. Criterion 2 does not apply.

3. The improvements within the project area are indicative of both commercial

and residential improvements. The date to different times, ranging from

1932 to 1959. The architectural styles are consistent with simple commer-

cial construction (brick and steel framed windows) to a California Bungalow,

Minimal Traditional residence, and contemporary California Ranch style ar-

chitecture. None of the standing structures are considered exemplary or

the work of a master architect, artisan, or master craftsman. No unique

materials were used in the construction and no unique design elements are

present. None of the standing structures were found to meet the intent of

Criterion 3 and, therefore, Criterion 3 does not apply with respect to this

project area.

4. No evidence of paleontological, prehistoric archaeological, or historic ar-

chaeological resources was found as a result of this investigation. As such,

and unless buried resources are uncovered at a later date, there is no data

to suggest the proposed project area will yield evidence of information im-

portant to the understanding of prehistory or history. Therefore, Criterion

4 does not apply.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In addressing the OFT Construction Equipment Yard project, McKenna et al. completed the standard tasks involved in Phase I cultural resources investigations, including: an archaeological records search; Native American consultation; a paleontological overview; a field survey; identification and assessment of identified resources; and preparation of a technical report consistent with the data requirements of the Office of Historic Preserva-tion and San Bernardino County, California. The McKenna et al. findings are as follows:

Paleontological Resources No evidence of paleontological resources was found during the recent field survey. A paleontological overview from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and supple-mental research for nearby properties confirmed the project area is no sensitive for pale-


ontological resources and, therefore, the project area is considered clear of such re-sources. Buried paleontological resources are not expected to be found within the project area and McKenna et al. is recommending no further investigations with respect to pale-ontological resources. No paleontological monitoring is warranted.

Native American Consultation The Native American Heritage Commission reported negative findings for this project area and McKenna et al. received no significant responses to the letters sent to the local Native American representatives. Consultation for SB-18 and AB-52 compliance requires government-to-government consultation. The McKenna et al. consultation is considered preliminary and should be supplemented by consultation conducted by the County repre-sentatives. At this time, there is no indication the local Native Americans consider this area sensitive for cultural resources or important for religious or sacred reasons.

Archaeological Resources The recent field survey of the project area fails to yield any evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. The project area has been impacted by the develop-ment (and removal) of orchards; development (and removal) of commercial structures; and the development of residential complexes. Areas not covered with structures or stored equipment were examined for any evidence of archaeological resources. The findings were negative and, given the extent of the impacts to the project area, no evi-dence of archaeological resources was found. McKenna et al. considers the project area clear of archaeological resources but acknowl-edges the potential for buried resources (more likely historic archaeological resources). Although the likelihood is low, McKenna et al. recognizes this potential and recommends the project proponent be prepared should archaeological resources be uncovered as a result of project area preparation activities. No archaeological monitoring program is war-ranted at this time, but the proponent should have an archaeological consultant on-call, should resources be identified as some later date.

Built Environment(s) The extent of the “built environment” within the project area consists of one commercial structure and three residential complexes. None of these have been determined to be significant cultural resources and, therefore, any alterations, renovations, or demolition activities will not result in any adverse impacts. Two of the residences are to be renovated for use/occupancy. The third residence and the commercial structure are proposed for demolition. As none are considered significant under CEQA criteria, no further studies are recommended. Documentation of the demolition activities are recommended to as-sure adequate recordation of these two complexes.


Historic Landscapes Between ca. 1927 and 1946, the project area (eastern half) was dominated by the pres-ence of a citrus orchard. These trees have since been removed. The removal of the orchard and the lack of any other evidence of historic landscapes, has rendered the po-tential for the identification null and void. There is no historic landscape within the project area and, therefore, no further studies are warranted with respect to historic landscapes.

Ethnic Resources No physical evidence of “ethnic resources” was found within the project area. Although at least two of the early property owners were immigrants, they left no physical evidence indicative of their ethnicities. The lack of any evidence of ethnic resources has rendered the potential for the identification of such resources null and void. There are no identifia-ble ethnic resources within the project area and, therefore, no further studies are war-ranted with respect to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURES Although no significant cultural resources were identified within the project area, McKen-na et al. proposes the following mitigation measures to assure previously unidentified resources are adequately addressed in compliance with CEQA, as amended: MM-CULT-1: The project area is not sensitive for paleontological resources. On

the oft chance (no pun intended) resources are uncovered, the pro-ponent should have a paleontological consultant on-call to address any find and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan (PRIMP) de-signed to identify, recover, analysis, report, and curate the find(s) in accordance with the protocols and guidelines of the San Bernar-dino County Museum.

MM-CULT-2: The project area is not considered sensitive for prehistoric Native

American cultural resources, but such resources may be present in a buried context. McKenna et al. recommends the Lead Agency complete the Native American consultation process and, pending the results of the consultation (primarily Gabrielino and Serrano), consider whether or not to implement an archaeological monitoring program. McKenna et al. recommends the proponent have an ar-chaeological consultant on-call, should any evidence of prehistoric resources be uncovered. If deemed appropriate, an archaeological monitoring program overseen by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American representative be initiated. At the discretion of the Lead Agency, spot monitoring may be initiated to assure re-


sources are not being missed or discarded. Any monitoring pro-

gram must comply with standard profession policies and guidelines and managed by a professional archaeologist meeting the Secre-tary of the Interior standards.

MM-CULT-3: To assure adequate recordation, McKenna et al. recommends a

qualified historic archaeologist be on-site for any demolition activi-ties pertaining to historic-period buildings and structures. The mon-itoring of demolition should include photo-documentation of the demolition activities and an assessment of any previously unknown resources associated with the properties. The extend and duration of this monitoring would be dependent upon the demolition sched-ule and at the discretion of the Lead Agency. All professional poli-cies and guidelines would be followed and documented.

MM-CULT-4: If, at any time, evidence of human remains (or potential human re-

mains) is uncovered, all activities in the vicinity of the find must be halted, a buffer established, and the County Coroner immediately notified and permitted to examine the find in situ. The Coroner will determine the nature of the find. If the remains are determined to be human, the Coroner will determine their origin: Native American; archaeological but non-Native American; or forensic.

If determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will con-

tact/notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) will be identified. In consultation be-tween the MLD, Lead Agency, and property owner, the disposition of the remains will be determined. Any costs incurred would be the responsibility of the property owner.

If the human remains are archaeological (non-Native American),

the archaeological consultant will manage the removal, analysis, and reporting. The remains will be reinterred off-site and any costs incurred would be the responsibility of the property owner.

If the remains are determined to be of forensic value, the Coroner

will arrange for the removal and analysis. The County will assume responsibility of the remains and the property owner will not be re-sponsible for any related costs.

McKenna et al. considers the project area clear of significant cultural resources and, with the implementation of the measures presented above, no further studies are recommended.


CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the at-tached 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. SIGNED: ______________________________________ DATE: _________________

Jeanette A. McKenna Jan. 5, 2021


REFERENCES

Alexandrowicz, John Stephen and John Wesley Alexandrowicz 2014 An Historical Resources Identification Investigation of Tentative Tract No.

1893, APN 0231-092-01 at 14886 Merrill Avenue, City of Fontana, San Ber-nardino County, California 92335. On file, California State University, Fuller-ton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Alexandrowicz, Jhon Stephen and Susan R. Alexandrowicz 1994 Historic Preservation Investigations of Lot 21, Slover Ave. Subdivision Num-

ber 1, NE Corner of Cherry and Slover Avenues, County of San Bernardino, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Ancestry 2020 General Research, OFT Construction Equipment Yard Project. On file,

McKen-na et al., Whittier, California. Archaeological Consulting Services (ACS) 1994 Primary Record: 36-007795. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) 1980 Archaeological Resource Survey Conducted for the Corona Assessment Dis-

trict Environmental Impact Report. On file, University of California, Riverside, Regional Archaeological Information Center.

Ashkar, Shahira 1999 Primary Record: 36-010330. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 2000 Final Cultural Resource Investigation Report for the Williams Communica-

tions, Inc., Proposed Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Riverside to San Diego County. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Avina, Rose Hollenbaugh 1932 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in California. Unpublished Master's The-

sis, University of California, Berkeley. Ballester, Daniel 2008 Primary Record: 36-004131 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.


2018 Primary Record: 36-031717. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Bean, Lowell John 1975 “Power and its Applications in Native California.” Journal of California An-

thropology 2 (1): 25-33. Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia Brakke Vane 1979 Cultural Resources and the Devers-Mira Loma 500 Kv Transmission Line

Route (Valley to Mira Loma Section): A Study of the Paleontology, History and Archaeological of the Vicinity of the Line. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside.

Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indians Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum

Press, Banning. Bean, Lowell J. and Charles Smith 1978 “Gabrielino.” In: Handbook of North American Indians: California, Volume 8,

pp. 538-550. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beck, Warren A. and Ynez D. Haase 1977 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Bell, Alyssa 2020 Paleontological Resources for the OFT Construction Equipment Yard Project.

On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California. Benedict, Ruth 1924 “A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture.” American Anthropologist 26(3):366-392. Bissell, Ronald M. 1993 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Hidden Valley Golf Course,

Norco, Riverside County, California. On file, University of California, River-side, Regional Archaeological Information Center.

Bolton, Herbert E. 1927 Spanish Explorations in the Southwest, 1542-1706. Charles Scribner's Sons,

New York. Bonner, Wayne H. and Marnie Aislin-Kay 2008 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street

Communications California, LLC Candidate LA2270B (Assembly of God), 15427 Randall Avenue, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Cen-ter, Fullerton, California.


Boscana, Geronimo 1846 Chinigchinich: Historical Account of the Origin, Customs and Traditions of the

Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alto Califor-nia; Called the Acagchemem Nation; Collected with the Greatest Care, from the Most Intelligent and Best Instructed in the Matter. Reprinted, Wiley and Putnam, New York.

Brandman, Michael 2005 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Nextel Tele-

communications Facility Candidate CA8529A, 14570 Washington Drive, Fon- tana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Brock, James 1993 Primary Record: 36-007426. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Brunzell, David 2014 Cultural resources Assessment of the Wilcox Project, Fontana, San Bernar-

dino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Bureau of Land Management 2020 General Land Office Records. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California. Cadwell, Ernest 1955 “History of Fontana: A.B. Miller, Founder of Fontana.” The San Bernardino

County Historical Society and the Fontana Chamber of Commerce, San Ber-nardino County, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

Cotterman, Cary D. 2010 Primary Record: 36-023214. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 2010 Primary Record: 36-023215. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Cotterman, Cary D. and Evelyn N. Chandler 1999 Primary Record: 36-009862. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Daly, P. 2005 Primary Record: 36-012227. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.


Drover, Christopher E. 1979 An Archaeological Assessment of the Norco Hills Proposed Subdivision Near

Norco, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Regional Ar-chaeological Information Center.

1980 See Citation for Drover, Koerper, and Langenwalter (1983). Drover, C.E., H.C. Koerper, and P.E. Langenwalter 1983 “Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Sum-

mary Report on Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-064), Newport Bay, Orange County, California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(3-4):1-84.

DuBois, Constance Goddard 1908 “The Religion of the Luiseno Indians of Southern California.” University of

California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8 (3): 69-186. 1908 “Ceremonies and Traditions of the Diegueno Indians.” Journal of American

Folk-Lore 21 (81/82): 228-236. Duke, Curt 2001 Cultural Resources Assessment: Cingular Wireless Facility No. SB 146-01,

San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fuller-ton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San

Marino, California. Encarnacion, Deirdre 2005 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: San Bernardino Avenue

Pipeline and Pump Station in and near the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Fulton, Phil 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment Class I Inventory: Verizon Wireless Services

Yew Facility, City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Cen-ter, Fullerton, California.

Goodwin, Riordan 2002 Primary Record: 36-010330 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.


Grant, Campbell 1967 Rock Art of the American Indian. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co. Gray, Cliffton H., Jr. 1961 “Geology of the Corona South Quadrangle and the Santa Ana Narrows Area,

Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, California, and Mines and Mineral Deposits of the Corona South Quadrangle, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, California.” California Division of Mines Bulletin 178, San Francisco, California.

Green, Andrew 2020 OFT Construction Equipment Yard Project, San Bernardino County. On file,

McKenna et al., Whittier, California. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1978 “Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash.” In: Handbook of North American In-

dians: California, Volume 8, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 520-523. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical

Names. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Hanna, Paul Townsend 1951 The Dictionary of California Land Names. The Automobile Club of Southern

California, Los Angeles. Hansberger, Dennis 1975 Primary Record: 36-004131. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Harper, Caprice D. 2008 Primary Record: 36-010330 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Harrington, John P. 1933 “Annotations.” In: Chinigchinich: Historical Account of the Origin, Customs

and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Ca-pistrano, Alto California; Called the Acagchemem Nation; Collected with the Greatest Care, from the Most Intelligent and Best Instructed in the Matter. Reprinted, Wiley and Putnam, New York.

Heusser, (unk.) 1978 Cited in Bissell (1993).


Hogan, Michael 2017 Primary Record: 36-031716. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Hudson, Dee Travis 1969 “The Archaeological Investigations during 1935 and 1937 at ORA-237, ORA-

238, and ORA-239, Santiago Canyon, Orange County, California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 5(1):1-68.

1971 “Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal Cali-

fornia.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7(2):48-76. Jacquemain, Terri 2016 Primary Record: 36-029643. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 “Handbook of California Indians.” Bureau of Americans Ethnology Bulletin

78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1976 Handbook of California Indians. Dover Publications, New York. Leighton and Associates 1988 Geological Trench Logs, Corona Ranch. On file, The Buie Corporation, La-

guna Niguel, California. Love, Bruce 1998 Installation of Water Pipes along I-10 between Colton and Fontana. On file,

California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Cen-ter, Fullerton, California.

Mason, Roger D. 1984 Eastern Corridor Alignment Study, Orange County, California. Scientific Re-

source Surveys, Inc., Huntington Beach, California. On file, University of Cal-ifornia, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside.

1985 Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Etiwanda Pipeline and Power Plant

EIR. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal In-formation Center, Fullerton, California.

Mason, Roger D., Cary Cotterman, and Roger Hatheway 2010 Archaeological Survey Report for the San Bernardino Avenue Street Im-

provements Project (TO1592), Vicinity of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.


Mason, Roger D. and Mark L. Peterson 1994 Results: Chronometric Analyses. In: Newport Coast Archaeological Report:

Newport Coast Settlement Systems: Analysis and Discussion, Volume I, pp. 54-59. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton.

Mason, Roger D., M.L. Peterson, L.P. Klug, J.E. Ericson, H.C. Koerper, A.B. Schroth, R.O. Gibson, C.D. King, and R. McCleary 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Report: Newport Coast Settlement Systems:

Analysis and Discussion, Volume I. On file, California State University, Fuller-ton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton.

McCawley, William 1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. A Malki Museum

Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. McKenna, Jeanette A. 1985 CA-ORA-849: Reinvestigation of a Late Prehistoric-Historic Archaeological

Site in Orange County, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, Califor-nia.

1986 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations at Sites CA-ORA-858, CA-

ORA-859, and CA-ORA-698, Rancho de Los Alisos, Orange County, Califor-nia. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

1988 An Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the Upper Cactus Basins'

Project Area, within the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. 1989 Cultural Resources Investigations of the Phase I Tree Relocation Property

within the Proposed Sierra Lakes Project Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

1989 Historic and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree

Relocation Project Area, Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

1990 Historical and Archaeological Investigations of the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes

Tree Relocation Project Area, Phase 6, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

1990 Phase II Investigation: Historic Documentation and Archaeological Test Ex-

cavations of Sites within the La Cuesta/Sierra Lakes Tree Relocation Project


Area, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

1992 Addendum Report: The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Studies -

Archaeological Monitoring of Test Trenches on the Beckett Ranch Property, Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

1992 Cultural Resources Investigations and Historic Research for the Expanded

Santa Ana River Watershed Project Authority Site 1 Project Area, Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State Univer-sity, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, Califor-nia.

1995 Archaeological Artifact Inventory for the West San Bernardino County Water

Control District Pipeline along Agua Mansa Road in the City of Colton, Cali-fornia. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

2002 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Fontana Unified School

District Jurupa Hills Middle School Site in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.


District High School #5 Site in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.


District Elementary School #28 (8.47 acres) in the City of Rialto, San Bernar-dino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

2004 CA-8525 (Snowball), Fontana. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 2004 CA-506X, 508X, 509X (Speedway), 9300 Cherry Avenue, Fontana, Califor-

nia. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal In-formation Center, Fullerton, California.

2015 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed TEC Equipment

Yard Development Project in an Unincorporated Area of San Bernardino


County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (DRAFT)

2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed TEC Equipment

Yard Development Project in an Unincorporated Area of San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (FINAL)

2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Portland Cement Co. Pro-

ject Area on Agua Mansa Road, City of Colton, San Bernardino County, Cal-ifornia. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

2017 A Phase I Cultural resources Investigation of the Proposed Commercial De-

velopment in the City of Jurupa Valley, State Route 60 at Pedley Road, Riv-erside County, California. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California.

McKenna, Jeanette A., Richard Shepard, and Paul Shattuck 1997 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tentative Tract 15677 in the

City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

McLean, Deborah 1997 Primary Record: 36-004131 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. McLeod, Samuel A. 2015 Paleontological Resources for the Proposed TEC Equipment Project #1770,

near Fontana, San Bernardino County, Project Area. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

McWilliams, Carey 1973 Southern California: an Island on the Land. Peregrine Smith, Santa Barbara

and Salt Lake City. Mead, George R. 1972 “The Ethnobotany of the California Indians. A Compendium of the Plants,

Their Users, and Their Uses.” Occasional Publications in Anthropology/ Eth-nology Series 30. University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.

Meighan, Clement W. 1954 “A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory.” Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology 10 (2): 215-227.


Munz, Philip 1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Newmark, Maurice H. and Marco R. Newmark 1930 Sixty Years in Southern California 1853-1913. Houghton Mifflin Company,

New York. NETR 2020 Historic Aerial Photographs. https://www.NETR.com. Office of Historic Preservation 1996 Primary Record: 36-015288. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Paul, Daniel D. 2012 Primary Record: 36-010330 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Reynolds, Robert 1994 Personal Communications. Rice, Glen E. and Marie G. Cottrell 1976 “Report on the Excavations at CA-ORA-111, Locus II.” Pacific Coast Arch-

aeological Society Quarterly 12(3):7-65. Robinson, W.W. 1939 The Story of Riverside County. Title Insurance and Trust Company, River-

side Title Division. Roland, Jennifer 2015 Phase I Investigation for the Verizon Wireless Mallory Tower Installation Pro-

ject, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

San Bernardino County Archives 2020 Historic Research, OFT Construction Equipment Yard Project, Fontana, San

Bernardino County, California. On file, Mckenna et al., Whittier, California. San Bernardino County Assessor 2020 Property Information Management System: APN 0234-121-14-0000. On file,

McKenna et al., Whittier, California. 2020 Property Information Management System: APN 0234-121-15-0000. On file,

McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

https://www.netr.com/


2020 Property Information Management System: APN 0234-121-16-0000. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

2020 Property Information Management System: APN 0234-121-18-0000. On file,

McKenna et al., Whittier, California. 2020 Property Information Management System: APN 0234-121-19-0000. On file,

McKenna et al., Whittier, California. San Bernardino County Surveyor 1891 Map Showing Subdivision of Lands Belonging to the Semi-Tropic Land and

Water Company. Book of Maps 11, Page 12. On file, McKenna et al., Whit-tier, California.

Scientific Resource Surveys 1979 Archaeological Survey Report on a 1700+ Acre Parcel of Land Designated

the "Campeau Project" Located in the Lake Mathews Area of Riverside County. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Cen-ter, Riverside.

Scott, M.B. 1977 “Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California,

1810-1968.” U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 77-398. Smith, (unk.) and (unk.) Taggart 1909 Cited In: California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum Press, Los An-

geles (Bernice Eastman Johnston). Sparkman, Philip Stedman 1908 “The Culture of the Luiseno Indians.” University of California Publications in

American Archaeology and Ethnology 8 (4): 187-234. Stone, Mitch 1997 Historic Resource Evaluation - Wilkins Ranch near Fontana, San Bernardino

County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Strong, William Duncan 1929 “Aboriginal Society in Southern California.” University of California Publica-

tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26 (1): 1-358. 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, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Cen-ter, Fullerton, California.


Swope, Karen K. 1992 Cultural Resources Survey of a Five-Acre Parcel near Fontana, San Bernar-

dino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Tang, Bai “Tom” and Michael Hogan 2016 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Single Line Express

Project. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Tang, Bai “Tom”, Laurie Taylor, and Daniel Ballester 2006 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Revisited Wineville Recy-

cled Water Pipeline in the Cities of Ontario and Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Cen-tral Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

Teal, G. 1980 Primary Record: 36-004131 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Tibbett, Casey 2010 Primary Record: 36-010330 (Update). On file, California State University,

Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Triem, Judy 2000 Primary Record: 36-020009. On file, California State University, Fullerton,










2000 Primary Record: 36-020017. On file, California State University, Fullerton,

















True, Delbert L. 1954 “Pictographs of the San Luis Rey Basin.” American Antiquity 20 (1): 68-72. True, Delbert L. and Suzanne Griset 1988 “Exwanyawish: A Luiseno Sacred Rock.” Journal of California and Great Ba-

sin Anthropology 10 (2): 270-274. U.S. Department of the Interior n.d. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for

Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Inter-agency Resources Division. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

Walker, Clifford 1986 Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail. Mojave River

Valley Museum Association. On file, San Bernardino County Museum, Ar-chaeological Information Center, Redlands.

Wallace, William J. 1955 “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.”

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1968 “Cultural Traditions and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California

Coast.” Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1-14.

White, Raymond C. 1963 “Luiseno Social Organization.” University of California Publications in Amer-

ican Archaeology and Ethnology 48 (2): 91-194. Wlodarski, Robert J. 2011 AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Site LA8020 (Fontana Relocation) Lo-

cated at 14560 Washington Drive, Fontana, California 92335. On file, Cali-fornia State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.

a phase i cultural resources investigation of the …

Documents