HISTORIC STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR THE WATSON CORPORATE CENTER
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Sections 22 and 27, Township 2 South, Range 7 West of the Corona North, California USGS Quadrangle
APNs 0218-291-01, 0218-291-02, 0218-291-07 through -09, 0218-301-01, 0218- 301-05 through -07, 0218-301-12, 0218-301-14, 0218-301-15, 0218-301-22, 1054-371-01, 1054-371-02, 1054-441-01, 1054-441-02, 1054-451-01, 1054-451- 02, 1054-461-02, 1054-461-03, 1055-081-01, and 1055-081-02
Prepared on Behalf of: Watson Land Company 22010 Wilmington Avenue Carson, California 90745
Prepared for: City of Chino Planning Department 13220 Central Avenue Chino, California 91710
Prepared by: Jennifer R. Kraft and Brian F. Smith Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064
September 8, 2014 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Archaeological Report Summary Information
Authors: Jennifer R. Kraft and Brian F. Smith
Prepared by: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 484-0915
Report Date: September 8, 2014
Report Title: Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared on Behalf of: Watson Land Company 22010 Wilmington Avenue Carson, California 90745
Prepared for: City of Chino Planning Department 13220 Central Avenue Chino, California 91710
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: APNs 0218-291-01, 0218-291-02, 0218-291-07 through -09, 0218-301-01, 0218-301-05 through -07, 0218-301-12, 0218- 301-14, 0218-301-15, 0218-301-22, 1054-371-01, 1054-371- 02, 1054-441-01, 1054-441-02, 1054-451-01, 1054-451-02, 1054-461-02, 1054-461-03, 1055-081-01, and 1055-081-02
USGS Quadrangle: Sections 22 and 27, Township 2 South, Range 7 West of the Corona North, California USGS Quadrangle
Study Area: Approximately 211.9 acres
Key Words: Historic structure inventory; structure evaluation; positive for historic structures; no significant structures present within project area.
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY / ABSTRACT ...... 1.0–1 1.1 Purpose of Investigation ...... 1.0–1 1.2 Major Findings ...... 1.0–1 1.3 Recommendation Summary ...... 1.0–2 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2.0–1 2.1 Previous Work ...... 2.0–1 2.2 Project Setting ...... 2.0–5 2.3 Cultural Setting ...... 2.0–5 2.3.1 Prehistoric Period ...... 2.0–5 2.3.2 Historic Period ...... 2.0–7 2.4 Research Goals ...... 2.0–11 3.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 3.0–1 3.1 Field Methodology ...... 3.0–1 3.2 Historical Resources Records Search ...... 3.0–1 3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation ...... 3.0–1 4.0 RESULTS ...... 4.0–1 4.1 Records Search Results ...... 4.0–1 4.2 Historic Structure Inventory ...... 4.0–4 4.3 Project Area History ...... 4.0–20 4.4 Results of the Historic Structure Inventory Survey ...... 4.0–30 5.0 SIGNIFICANCE ...... 5.0–1 5.1 Identified Historic Contexts ...... 5.0–1 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6.0–1 7.0 CERTIFICATION ...... 7.0–1 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8.0–1
Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel Appendix B – Site Record Forms Appendix C – Assessor’s Building Records
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
List of Figures
Section Page
Figure 2.0–1 General Location Map ...... 2.0–2 Figure 2.0–2 Project Location Map ...... 2.0–3 Figure 2.0–3 Project Development Map ...... 2.0–4 Figure 4.2–1 Historic Inventory Map ...... 4.0–5 Figure 4.3–1 1857 Plat Map ...... 4.0–21 Figure 4.3–2 1873 Plat Map ...... 4.0–22 Figure 4.3–3 1881 Plat Map ...... 4.0–23 Figure 4.3–4 1938 Aerial Photograph ...... 4.0–25 Figure 4.3–5 1949 Aerial Photograph ...... 4.0–27 Figure 4.3–6 1959 Aerial Photograph ...... 4.0–28 Figure 4.3–7 1967 Aerial Photograph ...... 4.0–28
List of Plates
Section Page
Plate 4.2–1 View of the residence located at 15102 Carpenter Avenue, facing south ...4.0–6 Plate 4.2–2 View of the residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue, facing southeast ...... 4.0–7 Plate 4.2–3 View of the modern garage doors installed at 15389 Carpenter Avenue ....4.0–8 Plate 4.2–4 View of the 12-inch open eaves and boxed window grilles of the residence Located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue ...... 4.0–9 Plate 4.2–5 View of the aluminum windows at 15389 Carpenter Avenue ...... 4.0–9 Plate 4.2–6 View of the 1950s barn located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue ...... 4.0–10 Plate 4.2–7 View of the dairy located at 8749 Merrill Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–11 Plate 4.2–8 View of the residence located at 8749 Merrill Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–12 Plate 4.2–9 View of the residence located at 8919 Merrill Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–13 Plate 4.2–10 View of the P&D Dairy located at 8919 Merrill Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–13 Plate 4.2–11 View of the residence at 9019 Merrill Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–14 Plate 4.2–12 View of the residence at 9029 Merrill Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–15 Plate 4.2–13 View of the residence and garage at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing south ...... 4.0–16 Plate 4.2–14 View of the rear porch of the residence at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing west ...... 4.0–17 Plate 4.2–15 View of the dairy operation at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing southeast 4.0–18 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
List of Plates (continued)
Section Page
Plate 4.2–16 View of the barn located at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing southeast .....4.0–19 Plate 4.2–17 View of the modern structures at 8845 Remington Avenue, facing northeast ...... 4.0–20
List of Tables
Section Page
Table 4.1–1 Historic Resources Located Within One-Half Mile of the Watson Corporate Center Project ...... 4.0–2 Table 4.1–2 Previous Studies Conducted in the Area of the Watson Corporate Center Project ...... 4.0–2
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
The following report describes the results of a historic structures inventory and evaluation program conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) for the Watson Corporate Center Project (referred to as “the Project” in this report) in Chino, California. The Project consists of approximately 211.9 acres situated to the southwest of the intersection of Carpenter and Merrill avenues, generally within the southern portion of the city of Chino. The property is currently being primarily used for dairy operations but will be developed for industrial uses. Specifically, this project is situated within portions of Sections 22 and 27 of the USGS 7.5- minute Corona North, California topographic map, Township 2 South, Range 7 West. The project area includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0218-291-01, 0218-291-02, 0218-291- 07 through -09, 0218-301-01, 0218-301-05 through -07, 0218-301-12, 0218-301-14, 0218-301- 15, 0218-301-22, 1054-371-01, 1054-371-02, 1054-441-01, 1054-441-02, 1054-451-01, 1054- 451-02, 1054-461-02, 1054-461-03, 1055-081-01, and 1055-081-02. BFSA conducted the assessment to evaluate any historic structures present within the project area in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
1.1 Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to produce a historic structure inventory and significance assessment as part of the environmental review of the development application for the Project. The historic structure evaluation process consisted of a records search of previously recorded historic structures on or near the property, a historical structure survey, and an evaluation of the potential historic significance of historic resources identified within the project boundaries.
1.2 Major Findings The records search conducted for the project identified three historic structures within a one-half-mile radius of the project area. The historic structure inventory process evaluated eight structures, or groups of structures, to determine if any met the minimum age threshold to be considered historic. As a result of the historic structure inventory, four historic structures were identified within the Project. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) primary site record forms have been prepared for the identified historic structures and these have been submitted to the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) (Appendix B). The historic structures have been evaluated and determined to be not significant under CRHR and CEQA criteria.
1.0–1 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
1.3 Recommendation Summary None of the structures located within the Project have been determined to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, nor are they considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Because no significant historic resources will be impacted by the project, no mitigation recommendations are required.
1.0–2 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
2.0 INTRODUCTION
BFSA was retained by Watson Land Company to conduct a historic structure inventory and evaluation report of the proposed Project. The historic structures survey was conducted in order to comply with CEQA regulations and City of Chino environmental guidelines with regards to development-generated impacts to potential historic resources. The project is located in an area of moderate historic (built environment) resource sensitivity, as is suggested by previously recorded historic structures located within the general area. The Project is planned as a commercial business/industrial park. The project covers approximately 211.9 acres, which are characterized as cultivated land, dairy land, and horse stables. This agricultural landscape is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, bounded by Merrill Avenue, Carpenter Avenue, Remington Avenue, Moons Place, Hellman Avenue, and Vineyard Avenue. The project area includes APNs 0218-291-01, 0218- 291-02, 0218-291-07 through -09, 0218-301-01, 0218-301-05 through -07, 0218-301-12, 0218- 301-14, 0218-301-15, 0218-301-22, 1054-371-01, 1054-371-02, 1054-441-01, 1054-441-02, 1054-451-01, 1054-451-02, 1054-461-02, 1054-461-03, 1055-081-01, and 1055-081-02. The Project is located within portions of Sections 22 and 27 of the USGS 7.5-minute Corona North, California topographic map, Township 2 South, Range 7 West (Figures 2.0–1, 2.0–2, and 2.0–3). Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith directed the historic structures inventory and evaluation for the Project and conducted the historic structures survey with assistance from research archaeologists David Grabski and Stephanie Nelson. The technical report was prepared under the direction of Brian F. Smith by Jennifer Kraft. Jennifer Kraft created the report graphics and Elena Buckley conducted technical editing and report production. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
2.1 Previous Work LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted a cultural resources study for the project area in 2014. A draft of this report has been provided to BFSA for reference. As part of the LSA draft cultural resources study, three historic structure complexes were identified within the Project. BFSA was subsequently retained to provide the historic structure inventory and assessment for all standing structures within the project boundaries.
2.0–1
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
2.2 Project Setting The approximately 211.9-acre Project is located in southeastern Chino along the southwestern boundary of Ontario’s New Model Colony Area. The subject site is located within the Chino Basin. The Chino Basin is situated within the upper Santa Ana Valley of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Chino Basin is a relatively flat alluvial plain formed from sediments deposited by the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, such as Chino Creek, within the Perris Block of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges are the southernmost segment of a chain of North American Mesozoic batholiths that extend from Alaska to the southern tip of Baja California, and are a series of northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by similarly trending valleys. The project area is relatively flat, with the property’s lowest point located at its southwestern corner and its highest point located at its northwestern corner. Elevations within the project area range from approximately 636 to 672 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The entire project area has been disturbed by previous development and agricultural use. Currently, vegetation within the project area is characterized as primarily introduced grasses and weeds with landscaping and trees in some areas.
2.3 Cultural Setting 2.3.1 Prehistoric Period Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex, Encinitas Tradition, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Luiseño Indians. Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably. Reference will be made to the geological framework that divides the culture chronology of the area into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), the early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), the middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and the late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP).
Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused the glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes
2.0–5 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending on the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation while utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995).
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9000 to 1300 YBP) The Archaic Period of prehistory begins with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending on the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP). At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters 1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects on the types of resources available to prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten, but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000). The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, loss of drinking water, and loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants, including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).
2.0–6 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, periods, and horizons, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Millingstone, Pauma, and Intermediate.
Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) Gabrielino The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of current day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925).
2.3.2 Historic Period The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonialization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). In the late eighteenth century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing southern California, and gradually expanded their use of the interior valley (presently western Riverside County) for raising grain and cattle to support the missions. The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in what
2.0–7 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
is presently Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, while the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land in what is presently Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1964). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976). In the mid- to late 1770s, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through much of Riverside County while searching for an overland route from Sonora, Mexico to San Gabriel and Los Angeles, where he described fertile valleys, lakes, and sub-desert areas (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998; Riverside County n.d.). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen, Father Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde led an expedition from Mission San Juan Capistrano through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site before constructing Mission San Luis Rey in northern San Diego County (Brigandi 1998). The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off their land or put to work on the now privately owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent on the mission system became evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from the San Luis Rey Mission petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros, stating:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission...We plead and beseech you...to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev. Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely on prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become on the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans as compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The ranchers, both Mexican and American, did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976). In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States, and
2.0–8 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
in 1850 California became a state. These events generated a steady flow of settlers into the area, including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health-seekers, speculators, politicians, adventurers, seekers of religious freedom, and individuals desiring to create utopian colonies. Laid out by Richard Gird, the post-statehood owner of the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, the town of Chino (1887) was created in response to California’s land boom of the late 1880s. The history of Chino, its neighboring cities, and southwestern San Bernardino County have been examined by several local authors (Schuiling 1984; Galvin 2002; Bricker and Jertberg 1994), and the following historic timeline has been derived from these publications. In 1881, former miner Richard Gird bought the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino and the Chino Addition from a mortgage company that had taken the title from the trust of Isaac Williams’ daughter, Francesca. Williams was one of the original owners of the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, having taken possession of the land after California became a state. The rancho was 46,000 acres in size, and the early homesteaders dug artesian wells near Gird’s town plat that could provide water for crops. Gird also created, with help from the State of California, an agricultural experimental station on his land that operated for many years. Gird then began experimenting with various crops, such as sugar beets, to determine types that could be grown commercially. Around 1886, Gird built the narrow gauge Chino Valley Railroad, which was then abandoned when the Chino Valley Sugar Beet Factory, where tenant farmers would provide beets for processing, was built the next year. The Southern Pacific Railroad replaced the narrow gauge with a spur linking with the main railroad line in Ontario (Brown 2005). Soon after, in 1894, Gird was forced to sell the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino to Charles Phillips of San Luis Obispo for $1.6 million to settle his debts (Brown 2005); however, the sugar beet plant and tenant-farmed acreage was an unqualified success. It is possible that the lands in the project area were used to grow sugar beets for many years, and then converted to pasture or alfalfa land once the Chino Valley Sugar Beet Factory closed in 1917 or 1918. After the beet plant closed, the Chino Land and Water Company was formed from former ranch properties, and began selling off parcels. Fife and Morton (1974) indicated that the geology of the middle portion of Santa Ana, near Chino and southwest Ontario, was conducive to an artesian well and near-surface groundwater seeps. The Santa Ana River canyon served as a natural pincer keeping groundwater in the region longer before it moved into Orange County to the southwest. Prior to extensive pumping, much of the ground at the lower end of Chino Creek, against the Chino Hills, was boggy much of the time as a “leaky” cap of alluvium lay across the saturated zone, creating numerous seeps and low-pressure artesian wells. In the late 1930s, the State of California began to realize that the three existing state prison facilities (San Quentin, Folsom, and the new women’s prison at Tehachapi) would soon be overcrowded, so an ambitious plan to build new prisons led the State to purchase large quantities of farmland in the Chino area. Today, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation runs the California Institution for Men in Chino and the California Institution for Women off Chino-Corona Road to the southeast. About the same time, Chino Airport was first
2.0–9 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
developed as a training base prior to World War II; “Cal Aero Field” was one of four airports developed as part of the Curtis Wright Technical Institute based at the Glendale Airport. The United States Army Air Force contracted with the school to provide primary flight training for Army Air Force cadets just before and throughout the war.
Dairy Industry Although some dairy production did occur in California as early as 1697, with the arrival of cows to the California missions from Sonora, Mexico, it was not until 1880s that commercial dairy operations began in the state. During their early stages, dairy operations occurred mainly in the Point Reyes Peninsula, Humboldt County, the mountain regions of Lake Tahoe, and the coast near San Luis Obispo. Most of these dairies operated very locally and were generally family businesses. After pasteurization was developed in the early 1900s, dairy operations were able to expand. These expansions included the use of pasteurizing plants, bottling machines, and coolers (Galvin and Associates 2004). Because milk had become safer to transport, dairy operations were able to supply even more milk, cream, and cheese to the surrounding communities, which led to an increased interest in dairy farming for some families.
1900-1930: Free-Grazing Dairies Between 1900 and 1930, dairy farming in southern California consisted of free-grazed cattle, which were let out to pasture on five to six acres of land, and then brought into a milk parlor to be milked. Cows in the milk parlor were milked one at a time, by hand. Because the cows burned energy while grazing and competed with other cows for resources in situations of overcrowding, this dairying process did not produce as much milk as is common today (Galvin and Associates 2004).
1930-1949: Mechanization and Dry-Lot Dairying The population increase in southern California during the 1930s led to an increase in the number of dairies, as well as the number of cows at each dairy. In addition, California passed four acts that controlled the minimum price of milk, promoted dairy products through education and advertising, and provided fair trade practices in the marketing of dairy products. Sanitation standards to combat tuberculosis (which could be eliminated from the milk through the process of pasteurization) were also enforced at the county and city levels (Galvin and Associates 2004). In order to remain compliant with these regulations, dairy farmers were required to mechanize much of their dairy activities, including bottling and pasteurizing. The Dutch and Portuguese dairy farmers of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties were responsible for the modernization of the dairy industry in southern California. Because they were familiar with dry-lot dairying, these immigrants were especially successful at helping the industry to make the transition. In dry-lot dairying, cows were housed in concrete dry lots, as opposed to being let out to pasture. The sanitary conditions in which the dry-lot cows were kept
2.0–10 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
made them less susceptible to diseases such as tuberculosis. The result was healthier cows with much higher milk production (Galvan and Associates 2004). Because pricing regulations had been set in place and the higher southern California population was demanding more milk products, the sale and distribution of the excess milk also became more lucrative for the dairy farmers. Unlike other parts of the county, where dairy farmers practicing free-grazing dairying were being pushed out of urban areas, the dry-lot dairy farms were encouraged near the cities, and urban areas even grew up around the southern California dairies (Galvin and Associates 2004).
Post-1950: Dairy Operations The dairy industry in southern California flourished from the 1950s through the 1980s. With dairy-friendly zoning of approximately 14,000 acres in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County, many Dutch, French Basque, and Portuguese families chose to relocate there in order to become successful dairy farmers. These families became the cornerstone of the industry and the area’s large, highly efficient dairies made it the largest milk-producing community in the nation’s largest milk-producing state. Milking at this point was streamlined. After being fed for several hours, cows would be run into the pre-wash where they are sprayed down for cleanliness. They would then be run into the milking parlor or barn and milked using vacuum-operated milking pots. Milking only took approximately four minutes per cow with each cow producing about 25 pounds of milk at each milking. Cows were fed and milked twice a day by the 1960s, which, for a good sized dairy, could equate to around 650 gallons of milk produced per day (Galvan and Associates 2004).
2.4 Research Goals The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the Project, the study area under investigation is the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the inventory and assessment program conducted for the Project included a historic structures inventory of an approximately 211.9-acre area. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify historic structures and evaluate their significance under CEQA, the goal of the research design is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address regional research topics and significance of the resource to the local community. Several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any identified historic structures. The following research questions take into account the small size and location of the project area discussed above.
2.0–11 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any identified historic structures. The following research questions take into account the small size and location of the project area discussed above.
Research Questions: • Can identified historic resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual? • Can the types of identified historic resources be connected to a specific historic context? Which historic context(s) do they represent? • How do the historic resources identified compare to others reported from different historic inventories conducted in the area? • Do the historic resources identified constitute their own historic district or belong to a pre-existing historic district?
Data Needs At the survey level, the principle research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in the historic period within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement patterns of the project area occupants. Therefore, adequate information on the function of each structure, context, and chronology from a historical perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research was undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify historic resources occurring within the project area; 2) To determine, if possible, structure type and function, which historic context the structure may be connected to, and chronological placement of each structure identified; 3) To place each historic structure identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the historic resources identified.
2.0–12 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The historic structure inventory and assessment program for the Project consisted of an institutional records search and a historic structure inventory of the approximately 211.9-acre project area. This study conformed to CEQA guidelines for the determination of historically important structures. Statutory requirements of CEQA and the City of Chino, as well as subsequent legislation (Section 15064.5), were followed in evaluating the significance of all historic resources. Specific definitions for historic resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO March, 1995).
3.1 Field Methodology In accordance with City of Chino and CEQA review requirements, a historic structure inventory was conducted that employed documenting and photographing all structures located within the project boundaries. The inventory of the Project and CEQA significance evaluations of identified historic structures within the project were conducted in August of 2014. The entire project area was studied during the inventory. Photographs were taken to document project conditions during the historic structures survey (see Section 4.2). The inventory process identified 21 structures at eight locations that had the potential to be historic; however, only four structures were found to meet the minimum age threshold to qualify as historic structures.
3.2 Historical Resources Records Search The records search conducted by the AIC at SBCM was reviewed for an area of one mile surrounding the Project in order to determine the presence of any previously recorded historic resources. Results of the records search are discussed in Section 4.1. The AIC also provided the standard review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory. Land patent records, held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and accessible through the BLM General Land Office (GLO) website, were also reviewed for pertinent project information. In addition, the BFSA research library was consulted for any relevant historical information.
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation This report contains information regarding previous studies, statutory requirements for the Project, a brief description of the setting, research methods employed, and the overall results of the survey. The report includes all appropriate illustrations and tabular information needed to make a complete and comprehensive presentation of these activities, including the methodologies employed and the personnel involved. A copy of this report will be placed at the AIC at the SBCM. Any previously unrecorded historic resources or resources requiring updated information will be recorded on the appropriate DPR forms, which will be filed with the AIC.
3.0–1 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Records Search Results A historical resources records search for the project was requested from the AIC at the SBCM. The AIC reported that no cultural resources were located within the project boundaries. However, three historic structure locations have been recorded within a one-half-mile radius. These locations include a dairy barn and two dairies. The dairy barn is located immediately south of the project area, one dairy is located southwest of the project area, and the second dairy is located immediately west of the northern portion of the project area. Brief descriptions of the three recorded historic structures that are adjacent to the project area are provided in Table 4.1–1. A total of 24 previous studies and three general area overviews have been completed within a one-half-mile of the Project (Table 4.1–2). These studies primarily consist of Phase I assessments. The AIC reviewed the following historic sources:
• The National Register of Historic Places Index • The Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility • The Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File • The 30' USGS Elsinore topographic map (1901) • The 15' USGS Corona North topographic map (1901)
These sources did not indicate the presence of cultural resources within the project. However, for records searches and background research, the absence of positive results does not necessarily indicate the absence of historic resources. The records searches did denote the presence of recorded sites to the west and south of the Project, confirming the potential for historic resources on the subject property. Consequently, a historic structure inventory survey was conducted for the project area. The records search and literature review suggest that there is a potential for historic resources to exist within the general vicinity of the proposed project. Given the historic settlement of the region, there is a high potential for historic resources.
4.0–1
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Table 4.1–1 Historic Resources Located Within One-Half Mile of the Watson Corporate Center Project
Site(s) Description P-36-019872 Dairy Barn P-36-019871 and P-36-023548 Dairies
Table 4.1–2 Previous Studies Conducted in the Area of the Watson Corporate Center Project
Dahdul, Miriam 2001 “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Chino I Desalter Expansion & Chino II Desalter & Support Facilities, Chino Basin Area, San Bernardino & Riverside Counties, 16PP.” CRM Tech. Submitted to Tom Dodson Associates. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Foster, John M. and Roberta S. Greenwood 1980 “Cultural Resource Overview for the Sorrano Substation to Mira Loma Substation Transmission Route Alternative Corridor Right-of-Way.” Greenwood and Associates. Submitted to Southern California Edison Company. Unpublished report on file at the S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Foster, John M. and Roberta S. Greenwood 1985 “Cultural Resources Overview: California Portion, Proposed Pacific Texas Pipeline Project.” Greenwood and Associates. Submitted to Engineering-Science. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Hale, Alice M. 1997 “Cultural Resource Assessment – Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, Chino Basin Desalination Program: Water Pipelines, Wells & Reservoir, 26PP.” Greenwood and Associates. Submitted to Albert Webb Associates. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Holz, Barbara 1990 An Archaeological Assessment of 2.5 miles of southern California Gas Line NO. Chino Loop; Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. LSA Associates,
4.0–2
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Inc. Submitted to Southern California Gas Co. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Holz, Barbara 1990 “Line 5000-Chino Loop Monitoring, East of Cucamonga Creek along Remington Avenue”. LSA Associates, Inc. Submitted to Southern California Gas Co. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Love, Bruce and Bai Tang 1997 “Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties-Chino Basin Desalination Program, Facilities Revision Project, San Bernardino & Riverside Counties, 26PP.” CRM Tech. Submitted to SAWPA. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
LSA Associates, Inc. 1988 “A Cultural Resource Assessment, Chino Airport Expansion Project, San Bernardino County.” LSA Associates, Inc. Submitted to San Bernardino County, Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Macko, Michael E., Edward B. Weil, Jill Weisbord, and John Cooper 1983 “Final Report: Mira Loma-Serrano 500 KV DE and Serrano-Villa Park 220 KV Transmission Line Project.” Applied Conservation Technology, Inc. Submitted to Southern California Edison Company. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Martz, Patricia 1976 “Description and Evaluation of the Cultural Resources: Cucamonga, Demens, Deer and Hillside Creek Channels, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Archaeological Research Unit, UCR.” Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contract No. DACW09-76-C-0011. Unpublished report on file at the San Bernardino County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
McKenna, Jeanette A. 2003 “A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for Tentative Tract. No. 16419, Approximately 300 Acres in the Prado Basin Area of San Bernardino County, CA. 49PP.” McKenna et al. Submitted to Lewis Operating Corporation. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
San Bernardino County Museum Association 1975 “Ethnographic and Archaeological Background.” San Bernardino County Museum Association. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contract No.
4.0–3
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
DACS09-75-M-1580. Unpublished report on file at the San Bernardino County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
1978 “Archaeological – Historical Resources Assessment of Merrill Avenue – From Grove Avenue to Archibald Avenue, Chino Area.” San Bernardino County Museum Association. Submitted to San Bernardino County Transportation Department. Unpublished
Suss, Terry D. 1975 “Archaeological Impact Report: Resources Evaluation of Cucamonga Creek Area, Remington Avenue – Chino – Corona Road, U.S.G.S. Corona North, Calif.” San Bernardino County Museum Association. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contract No. DACW-09-75-M-1580. Unpublished report on file at the San Bernardino County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
Taskiran, Ayse and Rachel Greeley 1992 “Cultural Resources Assessment: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, Chino Basin Desalination Program- Phase I Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.” University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Research Unit. Submitted to Clark Engineering. Unpublished report on file at S.B. County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374.
4.2 Historic Structure Inventory The historical structure inventory identified eight groups of structures that could potentially meet the threshold to be considered historic. Each of these potential historic resources is discussed below. A map of all structures investigated for this inventory program is provided in Figure 4.2–1.
4.0–4
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
15102 Carpenter Avenue Building records for 15102 Carpenter Avenue state that the home is an 825-square-foot single-family home constructed circa 1940. The current structure, however, is a prefabricated home that was likely moved to the property sometime after 1978, since that is the date of the last assessor’s recordation for the 1940s structure. The second page of the building record is a permit for the construction of the garage that is currently located on the property. This garage was completed in 1990. Neither of the structures currently located on the property meet the age threshold to be considered historic structures.
Plate 4.2–1: View of the residence located at 15102 Carpenter Avenue, facing north.
15389 Carpenter Avenue A total of six structures are located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue. The structures consist of a single-family residence, a horse barn, horse stalls, a hay barn, horse shelters, and two training rings. All of the structures are currently associated with the Foxcroft Farm horse training and boarding facility established on the property in 2000. According to assessor’s building records, all of the structures except for the residence and the hay barn were constructed in 1970. Currently, the residence is a 2,232-square-foot single-family home constructed in the Spanish eclectic style popular in the United States between 1915 and 1940 (Plate 4.2–2). This
4.0–6
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
style is especially common in southern California due to the Panama-California Exposition held in San Diego in 1915, which emphasized the carryover of Spanish influences in Latin American architecture after the mission period (McAlester 1988). No exact date of construction could be obtained for the residence; however, an entry on the building record from March of 1969 states that the “owner says built about 1929.” The structure is visible on the property in aerial photographs from 1938; however, at that time, the house was located south of its current location where the horse barn now stands. The house was moved to its current position sometime around 1967.
Plate 4.2–2: View of the residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue, facing southeast.
The home currently exhibits three small concrete patios and a 458-square-foot utility building/garage connected via a breezeway, none of which are present in the 1938 aerial photograph. The utility building is clearly an add-on; however, it had already been connected to the residence by the time that the first assessor’s recordation occurred in 1950 and followed the same Spanish eclectic style of the home. Both the residence and utility building are stucco buildings of standard frame construction with concrete block foundations. They both exhibit low-pitched, cross-gabled roofs with 12-inch open eaves and asymmetrical façades common to the Spanish eclectic style (Plate 4.2–3). According to the building record, in 1950, the roof was
4.0–7
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
covered in tile as is most common in this building style; however, the tile roof was replaced with composite shingles (Plate 4.2–2). Two garage doors were installed on the west side of the utility building sometime after the last assessor’s blueprint update in 1978. The garage doors appear to date to the 1980s or 1990s (Plate 4.2–3).
Plate 4.2–3: View of modern garage doors installed at 15389 Carpenter Avenue.
The front of the home is flanked by a concrete slab porch surrounded by Spanish-style arches that connect to the roof (Plate 4.2–2). An arch is also present above the entry door of the home. On the roof above the front door is a round Spanish-style tower with decorative arch- shaped molding near its roofline. The windows that were originally installed in the home and the utility building were wood-framed casement windows, all of which are still intact. The windows located under the front porch are covered with decorative boxed iron grilles (Plate 4.2–4), also common to the Spanish eclectic architectural style. This boxed design was intended to allow the casement windows to open outward.
4.0–8
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–4: View of the 12-inch open eaves and boxed window grilles of the residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue.
Originally, the home had two fireplaces. One was located in the center of the structure and another along the southeastern exterior wall. The fireplace along the exterior wall, however, has since been removed and replaced by two aluminum- framed sliding windows. These are the only aluminum windows present on the home (Plate 4.2–5). According to the assessor’s building records, Plate 4.2–5: View of the aluminum windows at 15389 the hay barn was constructed Carpenter Avenue. in 1950 (Plate 4.2–6).
4.0–9
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
P late 4.2 –6: View of the 1950s barn located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue.
This structure is a corrugated metal gable-style barn. The barn was likely used for maintaining and storing farming equipment, as well as for hay storage, as there are no stabled areas for housing livestock. Only the residence and the hay barn meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures. A significance evaluation for the structures located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue is provided in Section 5.0 of this report. The horse barn and other structures do not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic.
8749 Merrill Avenue 8749 Merrill Avenue consists of a residential structure and dairy operation. Based upon aerial photographs, the structures were constructed between 1967 and 1980. Because the land was originally zoned as dairy land, no residential building records exist for the dairy or the residence. The dairy operation consists of a milk house, an open feed barn, a pre-wash, and corrals. The milk house is constructed in the same style as the milk house located at 8919 Remington Avenue. It has a front-gabled hipped roof with composite shingles, stucco, horizontal wood siding, and aluminum-framed windows (Plate 4.2–7). The dairy was operational at the time of the historic building survey.
4.0–10
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–7: View of the dairy located at 8749 Merrill Avenue, facing south.
The residence located at 8749 Merrill Avenue is a ranch-style home with a low-pitched hipped roof with composite shingles and two front gables. The exterior of the home is finished in stucco with board and batten accenting and brick wainscoting. Windows are aluminum- framed sliding windows and appear to be original to the home. Entry to the home is through double wooden doors. None of the structures located at 8749 Merrill Avenue meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures. No further evaluation was conducted for the structures located at this address.
4.0–11
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–8: View of the residence located at 8749 Merrill Avenue, facing south.
8919 Merrill Avenue Although building records do not state the year of construction for this single-family residence, aerial photographs of 8919 Merrill Avenue indicate that the home was constructed sometime between 1959 and 1967 (Plate 4.2–9). The home is a single-story, three-bedroom, 1,620-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached four-car garage. It is a ranch-style home with a low-pitched, side-gabled roof with wide, overhanging boxed eaves and composite shingles. Windows are aluminum-framed. The exterior of the home is finished with stucco and red brick accenting at the entry, the corner of home, and the breezeway arch. The home is associated with the P&D Dairy located to the east of the residence (Plate 4.2–10) and both structures exhibit brick archways incorporated into their designs. The archway on the residence is positioned in the breezeway, while the dairy has two similar brick arches flanking its front entrance. P&D Dairy was established in 1966 and is visible on the 1967 aerial photographs. Because of its association with the dairy, it is believed that the home was also constructed circa 1966. Because both the dairy and the residence were constructed circa 1966, none of the structures located at 8919 Merrill Avenue meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures.
4.0–12
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–9: View of the residence located at 8919 Merrill Avenue, facing south.
Plate 4.2–10: View of the P&D Dairy located at 8919 Merrill Avenue, facing south.
4.0–13
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
9019 Merrill Avenue No building record information was available for the residence located at 9019 Merrill Avenue; however, much like 8919 Merrill Avenue, aerial photographs indicate that the ranch- style home was constructed between 1959 and 1967. In addition, the home is constructed in a similar style to the residence at 8919 Merrill Avenue, with the ranch-style home connected to a three-car garage via a breezeway. The home has a cross-gabled roof with a moderate eave overhang, exposed rafters, and composite shingles. Windows are aluminum-framed. The façade and the breezeway of 9019 Merrill Avenue are primarily red brick, while the garage and the remainder of the home are smooth stucco. Much like the P&D Dairy and 8919 Merrill Avenue, this structure also exhibits a brick archway incorporated into the façade, located in the breezeway. It is assumed, based upon the stylistic similarities of both the dairy and 8919 Merrill Avenue, that 9019 Merrill Avenue was also constructed circa 1966. Because the residence located at 9019 Merrill Avenue was constructed circa 1966, it does not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered a historic structure.
Plate 4.2–11: View of the residence at 9019 Merrill Avenue, facing south.
4.0–14
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
9029 Merrill Avenue The single-family home located at 9029 Merrill Avenue was constructed in 1985 (Plate 4.1–12). The residence is a wood-framed 1,478-square-foot mobile home with a side-gabled roof and composite shingles. The residence exhibits vertical wood siding and aluminum-framed windows. A 288-square-foot carport extends off the east side of the house near the 400-square- foot detached garage, also constructed in 1985. Because neither structure located at 9029 Merrill Avenue meets the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures no further evaluation was conducted for the structures located at this address.
Plate 4.2–12: View of the residence at 9029 Merrill Avenue, facing south.
8819 Remington Avenue 8819 Remington Avenue consists of a single-family residence, a dairy operation, and associated outbuildings. The structures associated with the dairy operation were constructed in the late 1960s, while the home and its outbuildings were constructed between 1950 and 1971. The residence consists of a 1,678-square-foot single-family home constructed in 1952, a 900-square-foot barn constructed in 1950, a concrete poured-plaster swimming pool added in 1958, and a combined 1,026-square-foot garage and recreation room, with a concrete foundation, constructed in 1971.
4.0–15
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
The architectural style of both the residence and the garage/recreation room is a mixture between the minimal traditional and ranch architectural styles. The home was constructed as a stucco standard frame construction residence with a concrete foundation, a basement, and a low- pitched hipped roof. The roof exhibits wide eave overhangs with exposed rafters. The stucco originally on the front of the home was later replaced with board and batten siding and brick wainscoting; however, stucco still remains on the rest of the structure. A brick chimney is present at the front of the home near the entry door. The garage/recreation room is also stucco with brick wainscoting that matches that of the residence. The garage/recreation room has a low-pitched, front-gabled hipped roof with wide eave overhangs and exposed rafters. The shingles at the time of construction for both structures were shake shingles; however, the residence and garage now have composite shingles. Windows installed in the home at the time of construction were double-hung screened windows. Five of the original windows still remain, while the other 10 windows are aluminum-framed sliding windows. The garage/recreation room has only aluminum windows, which are likely original to the 1971 structure.
Plate 4.2–13: View of the residence and garage at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing south.
A covered rear porch was added to the home sometime after the assessor’s last entry on the building record in 1978. The porch appears to have been enclosed at one point, exhibiting
4.0–16
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
cinder block half-walls and a wooden door and window frames extending to the roof. The frames are currently void of any doors, window glass, or screens.
Plate 4.2–14: View of the rear porch of the residence at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing west.
The dairy operation located to the east of the residence consists of a milk house, a barn, a pre-wash, a steel corral, and corrals with a shade and chute, all constructed in 1967. A hay shed was added to the facility in 1969. The milk house has a front-gabled hipped roof with shake shingles, stucco, horizontal wood siding, and aluminum-framed windows. Much like the residence, the milk house also has brick wainscoting. The dairy is no longer operational and several of the windows have been boarded shut.
4.0–17
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–15: View of the dairy operation at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing southeast.
The 1950 barn located to the west of the residence is a front-gabled, wood-framed structure covered in corrugated metal. It has a large, wide entrance with no doors on the front. The back of the structure exhibits a doorway that has been patched over with metal sheets. Wood and metal structures have been haphazardly added on to the east and south of the barn; however, due to their disrepair, it is unclear what their original purpose may have been. The barn itself was likely used for storing animal feed or farming equipment. A cinder block wall separates the barn from the residence and garage/recreation room. The residence and the barn both meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures. A significance evaluation for the historic structures located at 8819 Remington Avenue is provided in Section 5.0 of this report.
4.0–18
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–16: View of the barn located at 8819 Remington Avenue, facing southeast.
8845 Remington Avenue A total of six structures are listed on the building record for 8845 Remington Avenue, including three single-family residences, two sheds, and a utility building. However, a modern utility shed and modern garage are all that currently remain on the property. The residences were demolished sometime between 1978 (the last assessor’s recordation) and 1980 (an aerial photograph), while the other sheds and the utility building had already been crossed off the building record form in 1977 as having been demolished. According to aerial photographs, the garage currently located at 8845 Remington Avenue was constructed between 1980 and 1994. The smaller utility building does not appear on aerial imagery until after 2011. No building permits for the new structures and no demolition permits could be located for any of the structures located at 8845 Remington Avenue.
4.0–19
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Plate 4.2–17: View of the modern structures at 8845 Remington Avenue, facing northeast.
4.3 Project Area History The Project is located within Lot 37 of the former Rancho Santa Ana del Chino land grant, Lot 38 of the Rancho Addition to the Santa Ana del Chino land grant, and portions of Sections 15, 22, and 23 of Township 2 South, 7 West (Figures 4.3–1 through 4.3–3). The original Rancho Santa Ana del Chino was granted by the Mexican government to Antonio Maria Lugo in 1841. Lugo turned over management of the rancho to his son-in-law, Isaac Williams. The Rancho Addition to the Santa Ana del Chino was granted to Williams’ daughter, Maria Merced Williams de Rains in 1869 (UC Berkeley Bancroft Library 2014). In 1881, Richard Gird purchased the original Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, the addition, and several hundred surrounding acres. Gird then subdivided the land into smaller ranches and platted much of Chino Valley for development (AccessGeneology.com 2014). Richard Gird built the Chino Valley Narrow-Gauge Railway to the north of the project area in 1888. This rail line connected Gird’s Chino to the city of Ontario. Not long after it was built, the Southern California Railroad purchased the southeast portion of the project area with plans to connect with Gird’s rail line (CaliforniaGenealogy.org 2014). Despite these plans, no rail line was ever built through the project area.
4.0–20
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
In 1899, Ethelbert E. Duncanson, a physician from Chicago, purchased lots 1, 2, and 3 of the land that is now 15389 Carpenter Avenue. Duncanson is listed on the 1900 Federal Census as a farmer residing in Cucamonga with his three daughters, Grace, Mabel, and Lulu. Although Duncanson is listed as married on the census, his wife, Emma, is listed as a patient at the Southern California State Hospital in Highland Township in San Bernardino County. Although no records could be found indicating what land Emma originally held title to, following her death in 1904, the southeast portion of the project area was granted to her heirs (BLM Patents 1904). This portion of land was located in Section 23 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, southwest of the present intersection of Remington Avenue and Moon Place, east of Ethelbert’s lots. In 1909, Duncanson was sentenced to life in prison at San Quentin (California, Prison and Correctional Records 1851-1950) and his land was sold to James E. and Sadie E. Russell. The couple and their four sons are listed on the 1910 Federal Census as residing near the intersection of D Street and 7th Street in Chino. It is unlikely that they ever resided at the property located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue. The couple sold the land in 1910 to David and Emma Russell, James’ parents. The land was transferred back to James and Sadie Russell that same year, and then sold to Tonnes T. and Warinka Tallaksen in 1911. The Tallaksens are listed in both the 1908 and 1915 city directories as residing in Pasadena, and therefore, also likely did not reside within the project area during the time they owned the property. In 1915, the land was sold to Stanley D. and Edith M. MacFarland. Although they owned the land until 1926, it is unlikely that they resided at the property as they are listed on the 1920 Federal Census and city directories (1921 and 1923) as residing in Pasadena. Victoria Bassignana purchased the property from the MacFarlands in 1926. Victoria and her husband Luigi are listed in the Pomona city directory from the 1930s to 1940s; however, their address “rt 2 bx 233” does not indicate where their actual home was located. By 1938, the residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue is visible on aerial photographs. Whether the family resided there at this time, however, is unclear. Aerial photographs from 1938 (Figure 4.3–4) also depict a residence located at 8845 Remington Avenue and one at 15102 Carpenter Avenue. According to building records, this residence at 8845 Remington was constructed circa 1925. The E-framed home with a concrete foundation and board and batten siding is, however, no longer standing. Aerial imagery indicates that the residence had been demolished by 1994. Two modern structures and two concrete slabs still exist at the 8845 Remington Avenue. The building record for the structure located at 15102 Carpenter Avenue states that the structure was built approximately in 1940. The structure remains visible on aerial imagery until 1980; however, during the time between 1980 and 1994 the original home is replaced with a completely different structure. The new structure was identified as a prefabricated home during the historic structure inventory.
4.0–24
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
In 1943, the Bassignanas sold the property located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue to Harry and Ruth Watkins and Warren and Nellie Bremer. The set of couples owned the property until 1948; however, both sets were listed on city directories as residing in Pasadena and Los Angeles, respectively. Bennie B. King purchased the land from the couples in 1948, but sold it again to Howard and Maryevelyn Tipton in 1949. No changes to the project area were visible on aerial photographs from 1949 (Figure 4.3–5). The Tiptons only owned the property until 1951; however, during their time as owners they likely constructed the hay barn that was recorded by the assessor’s office as having been built in 1950. According to assessor’s building records, the residence and barn located at 8819 Remington Avenue were also constructed in 1950. While aerial photographs from 1959 (Figure 4.3–6) depict the house and the barn, the land appears to have been used as cropland rather than as the dairy operation it would later become. No other changes within the project area are visible on the 1959 aerial photograph. In 1951, the Tiptons sold the land located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue to a widowed woman, Nellie Elliot, of Los Angeles. Ms. Elliot is listed in the Ontario city directory in 1951; however, much like the Bassignanas, her address is merely “rt 2 bx 220B.” While it is similar to the Bassignanas’ previous address and may indicate that both she and the Bassignanas lived at the home during the years that they owned it, this cannot be determined with any certainty. Ms. Elliot sold the property in 1957 to Forest Owen and Laura Lee Beebower of Ontario. The Beebowers owned the property until 1961 when they transferred ownership to Theron C. “T.C.” Ellsworth. During the 12 years that Mr. Ellsworth owned the property, the horse training facility that would later be established as Foxcroft Farm was constructed. According to aerial photographs (Figure 4.3–7), by 1967, the western half of the horse stalls had been constructed where the residence once stood. Based upon assessor’s building records, construction was completed on the horse stalls and the rest of the horse facility in 1970. Although the exact date could not be determined, the residence was later relocated to the northern portion of the property at the corner of Remington and Carpenter avenues. Also now visible on the 1967 aerial photograph (Figure 4.3–7) is the dairy operation located at 8819 Remington Avenue and the P&D Dairy with its two associated single-family homes located at 8919 and 9019 Merrill Avenue. The property at 15389 Carpenter Avenue was sold to the Ephraim Land and Livestock Company of Utah, and in that same year, sold again to C. Norman Pulliam. Ownership transferred between the Pulliam family twice, once in 1982 and once in 1988, before finally bring sold to the County of San Bernardino in 1992. Since then, the property has been leased to various tenants. The current tenant at 15389 Carpenter Avenue is the Foxcroft Farm horse training facility.
4.0–26
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
4.4 Results of the Historic Structure Inventory Survey The historic structure inventory survey of the Project was conducted on August 15, 2014. The survey was directed by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith with research archaeologists David Grabski and Stephanie Nelson. During the inventory, four structures that meet the threshold to be considered historic were identified. These structures include the residence and barn located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue and the residence and barn located at 8819 Remington Avenue. The historic structures identified during the survey are associated with agricultural activities that began within the project area after the 1920s. The historic structures consist of two single-family residences and two hay barns. These structures were originally part of the dry- farming agriculture activities that occurred in the project area before it became dominated by dairying activities. Although all four structures meet the age threshold to be considered historic, they were not determined to be significant historic resources. The structures are not considered to be architecturally unique, and due to their alterations and/or advanced stages of disrepair, they have not retained any historic integrity. In addition, none of the structures were found to have played a pivotal role in the history of the local community or the region as a whole.
4.0–30
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
5.0 SIGNIFICANCE
5.1 Identified Historic Contexts As presented by Galvan and Associates in their 2004 New Model Colony Historic Context:
Historic Contexts are those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within prehistory or history is made clear. Utilizing the information gained in the historical overview, there are several historic contexts that were defined after the preliminary historic research was completed. As opposed to the research themes, the historic contexts are more specific to the properties and resources located within the study area and are derived from comparing the built environment present to the information gained from researching the area’s historical development. The historic contexts define how each property will be evaluated for historic significance in the future.
Following are two identified historic contexts present within the project area that are exhibited in the built environment:
• Post-1950 scientific large capacity dairy properties • Ranch-style houses
While both of these historic contexts were identified within the project area, the only structures that meet the age threshold to be considered historic are the residences and barns located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue and 8819 Remington Avenue, neither of which could be associated with an established historic context. All of the post-1950 modern, large capacity dairy properties and ranch-style houses identified were constructed after 1966, and therefore do not meet the 50-year age threshold to be considered historic structures. Because of this, the only properties for which significance evaluations were conducted are 15389 Carpenter Avenue and 8819 Remington Avenue.
Integrity When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of significance. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances, integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if
5.0–1 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
a resource is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted. The seven aspects of integrity used in evaluating a historic resource are:
1. Location is the place where a resource was constructed or where an event occurred.
2. Design results from intentional decisions made during the conception and planning of a resource. Design includes form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
3. Setting applies to a physical environment, the character of a resource’s location, and a resource’s relationship to the surrounding area.
4. Materials comprise the physical elements combined or deposited in a particular pattern or configuration to form a property.
5. Workmanship consists of the physical evidence of crafts employed by a particular culture, people, or artisan, which includes traditional, vernacular, and high styles.
6. Feeling relies on present physical features of a property to convey and evoke an aesthetic or historic sense of past time and place.
7. Association directly links a property with a historic event, activity, or person of past time and place, and requires the presence of physical features to convey the property’s character.
In order to assess each aspect of integrity when evaluating each structure within the project area, the following steps were taken, as recommended in the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1. Integrity of location was assessed by reviewing historic records and aerial photographs in order to determine if the structure had always existed at its present locations or if it had been moved or rebuilt.
2. Integrity of design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the structure and any unique architectural features present in the structure.
3. Integrity of setting was assessed by inspecting the elements of the property, which included “topographic features, open-space, views, landscapes, vegetation, man-made features, and relationships between buildings and other features” (Little et al. 2000).
5.0–2 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
4. Integrity of materials was assessed by determining the presence or absence of original building materials, as well as the possible introduction of materials, which may have altered the architectural design of the structure.
5. Integrity of workmanship was assessed by evaluating the quality of the architectural features present in the structure.
6. Integrity of feeling was assessed by evaluating whether or not the resource’s features, in combination with its setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during its period of significance.
7. Integrity of association was assessed by evaluating the resource’s data or information and its ability to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the city of Chino or the state of California.
CRHR Criteria Criteria for eligibility for listing on the CRHR and CEQA significance guidelines were used to measure the significance of the resource. A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:
• CRHR Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• CRHR Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
• CRHR Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.
• CRHR Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
5.0–3 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
CRHR Evaluation – 15389 Carpenter Avenue • CRHR Criterion 1: In order to evaluate the structures at 15389 Carpenter Avenue under Criterion 1, BFSA followed protocols as recommended by the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1) Identify the event(s) with which the property is associated through the review of the archaeological record, historic records, and oral histories.
a. It was discovered through historic research that no significant events could be associated with the property. Because the property could not be associated with any specific event, no further evaluations for Criterion 1 were conducted.
• CRHR Criterion 2: In order to evaluate the structures at 15389 Carpenter Avenue under Criterion 2, BFSA took the following steps as recommended by the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1) Identify any important persons associated with the property through the investigation of the archaeological record, historic records, and oral histories.
a. The residence at 15389 Carpenter Avenue is associated with one individual of potential historical importance. This individual was Dr. Theron “T.C.” Ellsworth. T.C. Ellsworth was the cousin of prominent San Bernardino horse breeder, Rex Ellsworth (Ancestry.com 2014). T.C. Ellsworth owned the property at 15389 Carpenter Avenue from 1961 to 1973 and is likely responsible for building the horse stable barn structure associated with what is now Foxcroft Farm. Although T.C. Ellsworth was related to Rex Ellsworth, no evidence could be found that would link Rex Ellsworth’s success in horse breeding and racing with T.C. Ellsworth’s property. Rex Ellsworth bred and raced most of his horses in the 1950s, where T.C. Ellsworth’s facility was not even built until 1970. In addition, T.C. Ellsworth’s profession was dentistry rather than horse breeding, training, and/or racing, and horses were likely an investment or secondary occupation. Based upon this
5.0–4 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
assessment, the residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue does not qualify as being associated with any important persons. b. It was discovered through historic research that no historically significant persons could be associated with the property. Because the property could not be associated with any historically important persons, no further evaluations for Criterion 2 were conducted.
• CRHR Criterion 3: In order to evaluate the structures located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue under Criterion 3, BFSA took the following steps as recommended by the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1) Identify the distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method of construction, master or craftsman, or the high artistic value of the property. This will be done by examining the pattern of features common to the particular class of resources that the site or feature may embody, the individuality or variation of features that occur within the class, and the evolution of that class, or the transition between the classes of resources.
a. The residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue was designed as a Spanish eclectic-style home prior to 1938. While the residence and the hay barn do meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures, neither structure can be associated with a historic context for the area. In addition, the residence has been moved from its original location at the southern half of the property to its new location at the corner of Carpenter and Remington avenues. Once moved, the structure was also expanded. While the same types of materials as the original were used for the additions, the style and mass of the original structure has been lost.
• CRHR Criterion 4: It is unlikely that the structures located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue could contribute additional information beyond that presented in this report, which could be considered important to the history of the local area or the state. The structures could not be associated with any specific events or persons, and therefore, further research of the structure would not provide any additional information pertinent to the history of the city of Chino or the state of California.
5.0–5 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
CRHR Evaluation – 8819 Remington Avenue • CRHR Criterion 1: In order to evaluate the structures at 8819 Remington Avenue under Criterion 1, protocols were followed as recommended by the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1) Identify the event(s) with which the property is associated through the review of the archaeological record, historic records, and oral histories.
a. It was discovered through historic research that no significant events could be associated with the property. Because the property could not be associated with any specific event, no further evaluations for Criterion 1 were conducted.
• CRHR Criterion 2: In order to evaluate the structures at 8819 Remington Avenue under Criterion 2, BFSA took the following steps as recommended by the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1) Identify any important persons associated with the property through the investigation of the archaeological record, historic records, and oral histories.
a. The residence at 8819 Remington Avenue could not be associated with any individuals of historical importance. Because the property could not be associated with any historically important persons, no further evaluations for Criterion 2 were conducted.
• CRHR Criterion 3: In order to evaluate the structures located at 8819 Remington Avenue under Criterion 3, the following evaluation was completed as recommended by the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (Little et al. 2000):
1) Identify the distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method of construction, master or craftsman, or the high artistic value of the property. This will be done by examining the pattern of features common to the particular class of resources that the site or feature may embody, the
5.0–6 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
individuality or variation of features that occur within the class, and the evolution of that class, or the transition between the classes of resources.
a. The residence located at 8819 Remington Avenue was originally designed as a mixture between a traditional minimal and ranch-style home in 1952. While the residence and the hay barn do meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures, neither structure can be associated with a defined historic context for the area. The porch that was added to the residence after its original construction has also altered the originally intended mass and style of the structure.
• CRHR Criterion 4: It is unlikely that the structures located at 8819 Remington Avenue could contribute additional information beyond that presented in this report, which could be considered important to the history of the local area or the state. The structures could not be associated with any specific events or persons, and therefore, further research of the structure would not provide any additional information pertinent to the history of the city of Chino or the state of California.
Evaluation Summary The collection of structures reviewed as part of the historic structure survey are generally representative of the dairy operations that flourished in this region of San Bernardino County after World War II. Prior to dairy operations, it appears that portions of the project area were used for orchards and farming. Expanding populations in southern California following the war years created markets to support the dairy businesses that grew in the Chino and Ontario areas. While structures noted within the Project are reflective of the dairy expansion since the 1950s, the structures observed do not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic. The following addresses are not historic:
• 15102 Carpenter Avenue • 8749 Merrill Avenue • 8919 Merrill Avenue • 9019 Merrill Avenue • 9029 Merrill Avenue • 8845 Remington Avenue
5.0–7 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
The only structures that meet the age threshold to be considered historic are those recorded at 15389 Carpenter Avenue and referenced as Foxcroft Farm, and those located at 8819 Remington Avenue. The structures located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue have been constructed at different times since approximately 1929 (unsubstantiated) or 1938 (substantiated) until the 1970s. The residence on the property, which is likely the oldest structure on the property, has been moved from its original location, that of the current horse barn, to a position near Carpenter Avenue, and subsequently has been expanded from its original configuration. This residence is not considered to be architecturally significant, nor is it associated with any historically important individuals for this area. The architect (if any) and builder of this residence could not be identified in the historical assessor’s records. Regarding the structures at Foxcroft Farm, the link of the property to the famous racehorse owner and trainer Rex Ellsworth is not direct and not important. Rex Ellsworth’s cousin, T.C. Ellsworth, owned the property for 12 years and was likely responsible for the newer horse barn and associated improvements; however, while T.C. Ellsworth may have been influenced by his cousin’s success in horse breeding and racing, there is no conclusive link between the operations of T.C. Ellsworth and Rex Ellsworth, nor have any famous horses been bred and raced from Foxcraft Farm at 15389 Carpenter Avenue. In addition, the residence and barn located at 8819 Remington Avenue have also been altered since their original construction in 1950. The porch add-on to the rear of the residence has altered the original mass of the structure, and was not constructed to meet the architectural style of the home. The barn has also had different structures attached to it and the rear doors closed off with the use of metal sheeting. In addition, no persons of significance could be associated with the structures located at 8819 Remington Avenue. Because none of the structures located within the project area were determined to be significant, the proposed project will not result in impacts to historically significant structures. No preservation or other mitigation measures are necessary as conditions of approval for this property.
5.0–8 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The historic structure inventory and assessment program for the Project resulted in a determination that none of the structures located within the project area are eligible for listing on the CRHR, and all were evaluated as not significant under CEQA guidelines. A DPR form has been prepared for the structures identified as historic, including two residences and two hay barns, and these have been submitted to the AIC at the SBCM. Because no significant historic resources will be impacted by the project, no mitigation measures are required.
6.0–1 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
7.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
September 8, 2014 Brian F. Smith Date Principal Investigator
7.0–1 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
8.0 REFERENCES
Aislin-Kay, Marnie 2004 “Letter Report: Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate SC-213-01 (Holt Property), 16595 McAllister Street, Riverside, Riverside County, California.” Michael Brandman Associates. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998 American Local History Network’s Page for Riverside County, California. Electronic Document, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/riverside/, accessed 3/28/06.
Antevs, Ernst 1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. In University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9-23, Berkeley, California.
Archaeological Research, Inc. 1974 “Archaeological Report – Project W.O. 5-3764, Box Springs Feeder.” Archaeological Research, Inc., Costa Mesa, California. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Arkush, Brooke S. 1989 “Letter Report: A Twenty-Acre Extension, Tentative Tract 17989.” Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Axelrod, D.I. 1967 Geologic History of the California Insular Flora. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands, edited by R.N. Phillbrick, pp. 267-315. Santa Barbara Garden, Santa Barbara, California.
Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8), California, edited by R. F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
8.0–1 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith 1978 Serrano. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8. California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bedwell, S.F. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area of South Central Oregon. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Berryman, Judy A. and Stanley R. Berryman 1988 Archaeological Salvage Report for W-240: The Scraper Hill Site, Escondido, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Bingham, J.C. 1978 Archaeological Test Excavations within Border Field State Park, San Diego County. Department of Parks and Recreation. California Archaeological Reports 16.
Breschini, G.S., T. Haversat, and J. Erlandson 1990 California Radiocarbon Dates. Coyote Press. Salinas, California.
Brian F. Smith and Associates Various Dates Research Library holdings including Sanborn Maps, City Directories, Published Regional Histories, and Geologic and Paleontological References.
Brigandi, Phil 1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California.
Brown, Robert S. 1989 “Archaeological Survey of the Spanish Mill Project: A 300-Acre Property (Tentative Tract 24800) in Riverside County, California.” Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Budinger, Fred E. Jr. and Lora Hatheway 2002 “A Section 106 Historic Preservation Review of the Proposed Verizon Wireless Lake Mathews Unmanned Cellular Telecommunications Site to be Located at 13850 El Sobrante Road, Riverside County, California 92503.” Tetra Tech, Inc. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
8.0–2 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Bull, Charles S. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (No. 1), edited by Dennis R. Gallegos.
Bureau of Land Management/General Land Office Various Dates. Land Patent Records and Plat Maps. Accessed online at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov.
Byrd, Brian F. and Seetha N. Reddy 2002 Late Holocene Adaptations along the Northern San Diego Coast: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms. In: Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies on the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 40-62. Perspectives in California Archaeology 6. University of California, Los Angeles.
CaliforniaGenealogy.com 2014 Railroads of San Bernardino County, California by www.CaliforniaGenealogy.com. Website accessed August 2014.
Campbell, Elizabeth W. Crozer 1949 Two Ancient Archaeological Sites in the Great Basin. Science 109:340.
Campbell, E.W.C., W.H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C.E. Amsden, J.A. Barbieri, and F.D. Bode 1937 The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave. Southwest Museum Papers 11. Los Angeles, California.
Cardenas, D. Sean and Mary Robbins-Wade 1985 An Archaeological Investigation of SDM-W-143/146: An Unique Coastal Luiseño Occupation Site in Carlsbad, California. Unpublished document on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Carrico, Richard, Theodore Cooley, and Joyce Clevenger 1991 Final Excavation at the Harris Site Complex, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Clifford, James and Brian F. Smith 2002 “A Cultural Resources Survey of the Van Buren Boulevard Collector Project in Association with the Lake Mathews Golf and Country Club.” Brian F. Smith and Associates. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
8.0–3 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Colten, Roger H. and Jon M. Erlandson 1991 Perspectives on Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. In Perspectives in California Archaeology (Vol. 1). Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Corum, Joyce 1991 Phase II Archaeological Test Excavation at Site CA-SDI-5445, City of Oceanside, California. Caltrans District 11. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Cotrell, Marie 1977 “Report for an Archaeological Resource Survey Conducted on a 237-Acre Parcel in the Southwest Riverside Area, in Riverside County.” Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Curray, Joseph R. 1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723-735. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Davis, Alan 1981 “An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 17989, in Mockingbird Canyon, Riverside County, California.” Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Davis, Emma Lou 1973 People of the Old Stone Age at China Lake. Manuscript. On file, Great Basin Foundation, San Diego.
Davis, Emma Lou, Clark W. Brott, and David L. Weide 1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. In San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California.
Drover, C.E. 1982 “Archaeological Assessment of the Tentative Parcel Map 18472, Near Arlington Heights, Riverside County, California.” Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
8.0–4 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
1989 “A Cultural Resources Assessment of the La Sierra Project Near Lake Mathews, Riverside County, California.” Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
1991 “A Cultural Resources Assessment: Western Municipal Water District 7,920' 12" Diameter Pipeline, Woodside, California.” Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
1992 “Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resources Assessment of the 18-Acre Municipal Water District Lake Mathews Project, Lake Mathews USGS Quadrangle, Riverside County, California.” Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
1994 “Environmental Impact Evaluation: A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed 10-Acre Gamboa Rodeo Ring Project, APN 270-160-014+015.” Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
2001 “A Cultural Resource Inventory: Cacciatori Conditional Use Permit.” Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Ericson, Jonathan E., Henry C. Koerper, Christopher E. Drover, and Paul E. Langenwalter, II 1989 Advances in Obsidian Hydration Dating and Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 25(2):45-60.
Fagan, B. 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson. London.
Fenenga, Garret L. 1984 A Typological Analysis of the Temporal and Geographic Distribution of the Eccentric Crescent in Western North America. On file, University of California, Berkeley.
Gallegos, Dennis 1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1).
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos
8.0–5 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Editor. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry Jones. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California.
2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, Edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Carolyn E. Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
1990 Early Period Occupation at the Kuebler Ranch Site, SDI-8654, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R., Andrew Pigniolo, and Roxana Phillips 1989 A Cultural And Paleontological Inventory Update for the University of California at San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Glennan, William S. 1971 Concave-Based Lancelote Fluted-Points from California. The Masterkey 45(1):27- 32.
Grenda, Donn R. 1997 Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
Haggland, Mary H. 1983 Don José Antonio Aguirre: Spanish Merchant and Ranchero. In: The Journal of San Diego History, edited by Thomas L. Scharf, Managing Editor. San Diego Historical Society Quarterly, Winter 1938, Volume 29, Number 1.
8.0–6 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Handley, C. 1967 The Sun City Story. Sun City News, Sun City, California.
Haury, Emil W. 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona. University of Arizona and New Mexico Press, Tucson and Albuquerque. Hector, Susan M. 1983 Archaeological Excavation of SDI-5601 (SDM-W-1293), Carlsbad, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Heusser, Linda E. 1978 Pollen in Santa Barbara Basin, California: A 12,000-Year Record. Geological Society American Bulletin 89:673-678.
Hogan, Michael 2006 “Letter Report: Due Diligence Archaeological/Historical Review, Assessor’s Parcel No. 278-210-023, Approximately 10 Acres, Near the City of Riverside, Riverside County, California.” CRM Tech. 2000 “Letter Report: Records Search Results for Sprint PCS Facility RV54XC467A (K-9 Academy), Near Lake Mathews, Riverside County, CA.” Michael Brandman and Associates. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Hubbs, Carl L., George S. Bien, and Hans E. Seuss 1960 La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements. American Journal of Science Radiocarbon Supplement 2:197-223.
Inman, Douglas L. 1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 2000 “Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Riverside to San Diego, California Vol. I-IV.” Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Jordan, Stacey C. and Joshua D. Patterson 2006 “Archaeological Survey Report for the So CA Edison Company, Syborne, Dominic C&D Land Co., Hemet Nazaren, Sunset Vista Homes, and Iodine Springs Projects, Riverside County, CA (WO #6279-2326, 6377-1377, 6677-7101, 6577-1957, 6277-
8.0–7 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
7164, AI #6-2063, -1259, etc.).” Mooney, Jones & Stokes. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Jennings, Jesse D. 1957 Danger Cave. In University of Utah Anthropological Papers 27. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Kaldenberg, Russell L. 1982 Rancho Park North: A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in Coastal Southern California. In Occasional Paper (No. 6). Imperial Valley College Museum Society, El Centro, California.
Koerper, Henry C. 1979 On the Question of the Chronological Placement of Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3): 69-94.
Koerper, Henry, C., Jonathan E. Ericson, Christopher E. Drover, and Paul E. Langenwalter, II 1986 Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 22 (1):33-69.
Koerper, Henry C., A.J.T. Jull, T.W. Linick, and L.J. Toolin 1988 A Tandem Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (TAMS) C-14 Date for a Haliotis Fishhook. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(4): 49-53.
Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2001 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Cultural Complexity on the California Coast: Late Holocene Archaeological and Environmental Records. Perspectives in California Archaeology Series, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kowta, M. 1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6.
Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith 2013 “Cultural Resources Study of the Fairway Drive Project, Riverside, California.” Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Submitted to Private. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California 92064.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
8.0–8 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Laylander, Don and Dan Saunders 1993 Donax: Exploitation on the Pacific Coast: Spatial and Temporal Limits. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 6.
2005 Research Issues in San Diego Archaeology (updated web version). San Diego County Archaeological Society, San Diego, California.
Lecount, Lisa J. and Carmen A. Weber 1992 “Lake Mathews Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey.” Chambers Group, Inc. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Lerch, Michael K. 1983 “Cultural Resources Assessment of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Proposed Imported Water Conveyance System, Riverside County, California.” San Bernardino County Museum Association. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Lewis Publishing Company 1890 An Illustrated History of Southern California. Embracing the counties of San Diego San Bernardino Los Angeles and Orange and the peninsula of lower California. The Lewish Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. AccessGenealogy.com. Web. 27 August 2014. http://accessgenealogy.com/california/biographical-sketch-of-richard- gird.htm - Last updated on Sept 1st, 2011.
Love, Bruce 1990 “A Cultural Resources Assessment of McAllister Street Between Riverside City Limits and El Sobrante Road North of Lake Mathews in Riverside County.” Archaeological Research Unit. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Macko, Michael E., Jeffrey Couch, and Henry C. Koerper 2005 Implications of Ritual Biface Caches from the Irvine Site. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25(1):93-108.
Martin, P.S. 1967 Prehistoric Overkill. Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077): 969-974.
Mason, Roger D., Henry C. Koerper, and Paul E. Langenwalter, II 1997 Middle Holocene Adaptations on the Newport Coast of Orange County. In
8.0–9 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4, pp. 35-60, Institiute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Masters, Patricia M. 1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In: Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, pp. 189-213. Academic Press, London.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1-A19. Infotec Research, Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California.
Masters, Patricia M. and Dennis R. Gallegos 1997 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County During the Middle Holocene. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, pp. 11-22, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
McDonald, Alison Meg 1992 Indian Hill Rockshelter and Aboriginal Cultural Adaptation in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Southeastern California. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
McKenna, Jeanette A. 2000 “A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Vesta Telecommunications, Inc. Fiber Optic Alignment, Riverside County to San Diego County, California.” McKenna et al. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2).
Miller, J. 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis. University of California, San Diego.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moriarty, James R. III, George Shumway, and Claude N. Warren 1959 Scripps Estates Site I (SDI-525): A Preliminary Report on an Early Site on the San
8.0–10 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Diego Coast. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1958-1959. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-46.
Norwood, Richard H. 1980 Investigation of the Reading Site (SDM-W-1504): An Early Milling Site in San Diego, California. Unpublished Master’s thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Norwood, Rick and Carol J. Walker 1980 The Cultural Resources of San Dieguito Estates. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Pourade, Richard F. 1964 The Glory Years. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Quintero, Leslie 1987 Room and Board at Deer Springs. Faunal Analysis as an Aid to Settlement Studies. Unpublished Master’s thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Raven-Jennings, Shelly and Brian F. Smith 1999a Final Report for Site SDI-8330/W-240 ‘Scraper Hill,’ Escondido, California. Unpublished Report on file at SCIC at SDSU.
1999b Report of Excavations at CA-SDI-4608: Subsistence and Technology Transitions during the Mid-to-Late Holocene in San Diego County (Scripps Poway Parkway). Unpublished Report on file at SCIC at SDSU.
Reddy, Seetha 2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM Affiliates. Manuscript on file at South Coastal Information Center.
Riverside County N.d. Welcome to Riverside County, California: Riverside County History. Electronic Document, http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/county_info/history.asp, accessed 3/28/06.
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego Museum of Man.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert
8.0–11 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Areas. In San Diego Museum Papers (No. 3 – 1989 printing). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California.
1958 San Dieguito Implements from the Terraces of the Rincon-Patano and Rillito Drainage System. Kiva 24(1):1-23
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited with contributions by H.M. Worthington, E.L. Davis, and Clark W. Brott. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Rolle, Andrew F. 1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
San Diego County Archaeological Society (SDCAS) 1987 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. In Research Paper (No. 1).
Schmidt, James J. 2012 “Letter Report: 77-TD569291; WO 6088-4800, 0-4826, 0-4804, and E-4830: Equinox 12 kV, Roadrunner 12kV, Menifee 12kV and Flats 12kV Deteriorate Pole Replacement Projects.” Compass Rose Archaeological, Inc. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1981 “Cultural Resources Report on 1,330 Acres Located Adjacent to Lake Mathews in the County of Riverside.” Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty, III 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3).
Smith, Brian F. 1986 The Excavations at Site SDI-5594/W-1746. Manuscript on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Poway, California.
1987 The Excavations at Site CA-SDI-9956/W-3376. Environmental Impact Report on file at the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use.
2012 “Cultural Resources Update Letter for Lake Mathews 330 Project, Riverside County.” Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Submitted to Private. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California 92064.
Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty, III 1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs.
8.0–12 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
Unpublished report on file at the City of Carlsbad.
Smith, Brian F., Claire M. Allen, Mary M. Lenich, and Jennifer R. Kraft 2014 “Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Assessment for the Citrus Heights II Project: TTM 36475, Riverside County.” Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Submitted to Private. Report on file at Brian D. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California 92064.
Smith, G.A., W.C. Schuiling, L. Martin, R. Sayles, and P. Jillson 1957 The Archaeology of Newberry Cave, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino: San Bernardino County Museum Association.
Sparkman, Philip Stedman 1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. In University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 8(4):187-234, Berkeley, California.
Spier, Leslie 1923 Southern Diegueño Customs, Vol. 20, No. 16. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1).
Stropes, Tracy A. and Brian F. Smith 2013 “A Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the Citrus Heights/Fairway Drive Project, Riverside County, California.” Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Submitted to Private. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California 92064.
Swenson, James D. 1980 “Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel 9219, Mockingbird Canyon Area of Riverside County, California.” Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
True, Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3).
8.0–13 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
True, Delbert L. and P. Bouey 1990 Gladishill: A Probable San Dieguito Camp Near Valley Center, California. Journal of New World Archaeology 7(4):1-28.
True, D.L., C.W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology (No. 11). Berkeley, California.
Tuma, Michael 2002 Results Of A Data Recovery Program For Site SDI-15,889: A Late Archaic Period Site In Northern San Diego County, California. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Poway, California.
Tuma, Michael W. and Brian F. Smith 2001 “A Cultural Resources Study for the McAllister Hills Golf and Country Club Specific Plan.” Brian F. Smith and Associates. Submitted to Private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Various Dates United States District Court (California : Southern District) Land Case 335 SD, located at the Online Archive of California: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ Accessed 2014
USDA and USDI 2001 “Ecological Subregions of California.” Presented by the Forest Service (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), and Bureau of Land Management (USDI). http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/ecoregions.
Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding 1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science 204:701-710.
Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, Claude N. (editor) 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Roger’s 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers (6).
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. In: American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 168-185.
8.0–14 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast, In: Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. I. Williams ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1-14.
Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic 1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batequitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246-338.
Warren, Claude N. and D.L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory, In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.
Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California, Los Angeles.
White, Laurie 2000 “Letter Report: Records Search Results for Sprint PCS Facility RV54XC467A (K-9 Academy), Near Lake Mathews, Riverside County, CA.” Michael Brandman and Associates. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
2000 “Letter Report: Cultural Resource Assessment for Sprint PCS Facility RV54XC467A (K-9 Academy), Near Lake Mathews, Riverside County, CA.” Michael Brandman and Associates. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
Whitney-Desautels, Nancy 1987 “Archaeological Assessment Form: TT 23253 and 23062.” Scientific Resources Surveys, Inc. Submitted to private. Unpublished report on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521.
8.0–15 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Brian F. Smith, MA
Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: [email protected]
Education
Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982
Bachelor of Arts, History and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975
Experience
Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. In the past 35 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Brian Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Crops of Engineers (USACE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BR), the Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans).
Professional Accomplishments
These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts which have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric lifeways of cultures once present in the southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted.
Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large number of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects submitted to the Centre City Development Corporation, some of which included Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001).
Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade. 2000- 2007.
The Navy Broadway Complex: Architectural and historical assessment of over 25 structures that comprise the Naval Supply Depot, many of which have been in use since World War I and were used extensively during World War II. The EIR/EIS which was prepared included National Register evaluations of all structures. The archaeological component of the project involved the excavation of backhoe trenches to search for evidence of the remains of elements of the historic waterfront features that characterized the bay front in the latter half of the 19th century. This study was successful in locating portions of wharves and shanties that existed on the site prior to capping of this area after construction of the sea wall in the early 20th century.
4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns.
Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the City of San Diego.
Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty.
Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988).
Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the City of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs which document this major study.
City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the City and County of San Diego.
Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the City. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the City showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City.
The Midbayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the City. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric sites.
Cultural resources survey and test of sites within the proposed development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-September 2002.
Cultural resources evaluation of sites within the proposed development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002.
Cultural resources survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project Manager/Director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002.
Cultural resources survey and test of sites within the proposed development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002.
Mitigation of a Archaic cultural resource for the Eastlake III Woods Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project Archaeologist/ Director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 2001-March 2002.
Cultural resources survey and test of sites within the proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000.
Cultural resources survey and test of sites within the proposed Lawson Valley Project, San Diego County, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of 28 prehistoric and two historic sites— included project coordination; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4
Cultural resource survey and geotechnical monitoring for the Mohyi Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; field survey; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; monitoring of geotechnichal borings; authoring of cultural resources project report. Brian F. Smith and Associates, San Diego, California. June 2000.
Enhanced cultural resource survey and evaluation for the Prewitt/Schmucker/Cavadias Project, La Jolla, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel— included project coordination; direction of field crews; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. June 2000.
Cultural resources survey and test of sites within the proposed development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- June 2000.
Salvage mitigation of a portion of the San Diego Presidio identified during water pipe construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project Archaeologist/Director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000.
Enhanced cultural resource survey and evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000.
Enhanced cultural resource survey and evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000.
Enhanced cultural resource survey and evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project Manager/Director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000.
Salvage mitigation of a portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project Archaeologist/ Director— included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Survey and testing of two prehistoric cultural resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project Archaeologist/Director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000.
Cultural resources Phase I and II investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project along the International Border, San Diego County,
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5
California: Project Manager/Director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000.
Mitigation of a prehistoric cultural resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project Archaeologist/ Director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co- authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000.
Mitigation of a prehistoric cultural resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project Archaeologist/Director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000.
Monitoring of grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project Archaeologist/ Monitor—included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999.
Survey and testing of an historic resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project Archaeologist/ Director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and testing of a prehistoric cultural resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project Manager/Director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999.
Survey and evaluation of cultural resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project Archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999.
Survey and evaluation of cultural resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project Manager/Director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999.
Cultural resources Phase I, II, and III investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project Manager/Director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997-January 2000.
Phase I, II, and II investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 6
Archaeologist/Project Director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995.
Archaeological evaluation of cultural resources within the proposed corridor for the San Elijo Water Reclamation System Project, San Elijo, California: Project Manager/Director —test excavations; direction of artifact identification and analysis; graphics production; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. December 1994-July 1995.
Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Environmental Impact Report for the Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer Project, San Diego, California: Project Manager/Director —direction of test excavations; identification and analysis of prehistoric and historic artifact collections; data synthesis; co- authorship of final cultural resources report, San Diego, California. June 1991-March 1992.
Reports/Papers
Author, coauthor, or contributor, to over 2,500 cultural resources management publications, a selection of which are presented below.
2009 Cultural Resource Assessment of the North Ocean Beach Gateway Project City of San Diego #64A-003A; Project #154116.
2009 Archaeological constraints study of the Morgan Valley Wind Assessment Project, Lake County, California.
2008 Results of an archaeological review of the Helen Park Lane 3.1-acre Property (APN 314-561-31), Poway, California.
2008 Archaeological Letter Report for a Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Valley Park Condominium Project, Ramona, California; APN 282-262-75-00.
2007 Archaeology at the Ballpark. Brian F. Smith and Associates, San Diego, California. Submitted to the Centre City Development Corporation.
2007 Result of an Archaeological Survey for the Villages at Promenade Project (APNs 115-180-007- 3,115-180-049-1, 115-180-042-4, 115-180-047-9) in te City of Corona, Riverside County.
2007 Monitoring Results for the Capping of Site CA-SDI-6038/SDM-W-5517 within the Katzer Jamul Center Project; P00-017.
2006 Archaeological Assessment for The Johnson Project (APN 322-011-10), Poway, California.
2005 Results of archaeological monitoring at the El Camino Del Teatro Accelerated Sewer Replacement Project (Bid No. K041364; WO # 177741; CIP # 46-610.6.
2005 Results of archaeological monitoring at the Baltazar Draper Avenue Project (Project No. 15857; APN: 351-040-09).
2004 TM 5325 ER #03-14-043 Cultural Resources.
Jennifer R. Kraft, BA Field Services Manager, Faunal Analyst Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road Suite A Phone: (858) 484-0915 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: [email protected]
Education
Master of Arts, Cultural Resource Management Archaeology In Progress Saint Cloud State University, Saint Cloud, Minnesota 2015
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology 2004 University of California, Santa Cruz
Research Interests
California Coastal Archaeology Zooarchaeology
Medical Anthropology Historical Archaeology
Human Behavioral Ecology Taphonomic Studies
Experience
Field Services Manager, Faunal Analyst November 2006–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Duties include report writing, editing and production; construction monitoring management; coordination of field survey and excavation crews; laboratory and office management. Currently conducts faunal, prehistoric, and historic laboratory analysis and has conducted such analysis for over 500 projects over the past 7 years. Knowledgeable in the most recent archaeological and paleontological monitoring requirements for all Southern California lead agencies, as well as Native American monitoring requirements.
UC Santa Cruz Monterey Bay Archaeology Archives Supervisor December 2003–March 2004 Santa Cruz, California Supervising intern for archaeological collections housed at UC Santa Cruz. Supervised undergraduate interns and maintained curated archaeological materials recovered from the greater Monterey Bay region.
Jennifer R. Kraft.Page 2
Faunal Analyst, Research Assistant June 2003–December 2003 University of California, Santa Cruz Intern assisting in laboratory analysis and cataloging for faunal remains collected from CA-MNT-234. Analysis included detailed zoological identification and taphonomic analysis of prehistoric marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish inhabiting the greater Monterey Bay region.
Archaeological Technician, Office Manager January 2000-December 2001 Archaeological Resource Management Conducted construction monitoring, field survey, excavation, report editing, report production, monitoring coordination and office management.
Certifications
City of San Diego Certified Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor
40-Hour Hazardous Waste/Emergency Response OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (e)
Technical Reports
Kennedy, George L., Todd A. Wirths and Jennifer R. Kraft 2013 Negative Paleontological, Archaeological, and Native American Monitoring and Mitigation Report, Tri-City Christian High School, 302 North Emerald Drive, Vista, San Diego County, California (APN 166-411-75). Prepared for Tri-City Christian School. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Kraft, Jennifer R. 2012 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Pottery Court Project (TPM 36193) City of Lake Elsinore. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith 2013 Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Webster Residence, La Jolla, California. Prepared for KW Building and Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase III Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation General Engineering Contractors. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase IIIA Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Jennifer R. Kraft.Page 3
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Coral Mountain Apartments Project, City of La Quinta, California. Prepared for Coral Mountain Apartments, LP. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the F Street Emergency Water Main Replacement Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Orion Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Hyde Residence. Prepared for Dr. Paul Hyde. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Juniper Street Sidewalk Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Kates Residence Project. Prepared for Brad and Shannon Kates. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pump Station 84 Upgrade and Pump Station 62 Abandonment Project. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 781 Project. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Woolf Residence Project. Prepared for A.J. Woolf Family Trust. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resources Study of the Fairway Drive Project. Prepared for CV Communities, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Old Town Community Church Project, 2444 Congress Street, San Diego, California 92110. Prepared for Soltek Pacific, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment, 161 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, California (APN 666- 030-09). Prepared for Blue Key Realty. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment, 2603 Dove Street, San Diego, California (APN) 452-674-32). Prepared for Barzal and Scotti Real Estate Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Historic Structure Assessment at the Western Christian School, 3105 Padua Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 (APN 8671-005-053). Prepared for Western Christian School. Report on file at the City of Claremont. Jennifer R. Kraft.Page 4
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 7th and F Street Parking Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for DZI Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1919 Spindrift Drive Project. Prepared for V.J. and Uma Joshi. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Knight Residence Project, 7970 Roseland Avenue, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Mr. Dennis Knight. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 799-750 Project. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Negative Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Citywide Pump Station Upgrades Group II Project. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation General Engineering Contractors. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Negative Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Citywide Pump Station Upgrades Group III Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the 3364 Randy Lane Project, Chula Vista, California. Prepared for H&M Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Ecos Diamond Valley Project, Community of Winchester, County of Riverside. Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Ecos Nuevo Project, Community of Nuevo, County of Riverside. Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 754 Project, City of San Diego (Project No. 177711/187301). Prepared for S.C. Valley Engineering, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 714 Project. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 780 Project. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring of the 47th Street Warehouse Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Aardema Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Florida Street Apartments Project (The Kalos Project). Prepared for Florida Street Housing Associates. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. Jennifer R. Kraft.Page 5
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Pacific Highway Trunk Sewer Project. Prepared for HPS Mechanical. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2011 Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Wesley Palms Retirement Community Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Front Porch Development Company. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Kraft, Jennifer R. and Tracy A. Stropes 2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Orange Street Project. Prepared for Mike Lesle. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 13th & Market Project. Prepared for The Hanover Company. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the T-Mobile West, LLC Telecommunications Candidate SD02867C (Presidio Park). Prepared for Michael Brandmann Associates. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Kraft, Jennifer R., Tracy A. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith 2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Ariel Suites Project. Prepared for Ariel Suites, LP. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Smith, Brian F., Claire M. Allen, Mary M. Lenich, and Jennifer R. Kraft 2013 Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Assessment for the Citrus Heights II Project, TTM 36475, Riverside County, California. Prepared for CV Communities, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center.
Smith, Brian F. and Jennifer R. Kraft 2013 Cultural Resources Study for the Los Peñasquitos Adobe Drainage Project. Prepared for HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2013 Cultural Resources Study for the Rancho Peñasquitos Adobe Drainage MND Project, San Diego County, California (CSD-04.03). Prepared for HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
Contributing Author /Analyst
2011 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for A Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-4606 Locus B for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for An Archaeological Study for the 1912 Spindrift Drive Project, La Jolla, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for Island Architects. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center.
2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Results of a Cultural Mitigation and Monitoring Program for Robertson Ranch: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Camps near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by Brian F. Smith. Prepared for McMillan Land Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. Jennifer R. Kraft.Page 6
2009 Faunal Identification for “An Earlier Extirpation of Fur Seals in the Monterey Bay Region: Recent Findings and Social Implications” by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez and Charlotte K. Sunseri. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 21, 2009
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
APPENDIX B
Site Record Forms
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: 15389 Carpenter Avenue
P1. Other Identifier: Foxcroft Farm *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Corona North Date: T 2S ; R 7W ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. San Bernardino c. Address: 15389 Carpenter Avenue City: Chino Zip: 91710 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: This single family residence is located south of the intersection of Carpetner Ave and Remington Ave in Chino, CA
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The building located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue is a single family residence with attached garage built circa 1929. The home is now located near the intersection of Remington Avenue and Carpenter Avenue, however, it was moved to this location in the 1960s. The original location was further south on the parcel where the horse stalls now stand. The home is a single-story Spanish eclectic style adobe home with a low-pitched, cross-gabled roof with 12.inch open eaves and an asymmetrical façade. On the roof above the entry door is a round Spanish-style tower with decorative arch-shaped molding. The roof was originally tile, however it is now made up of composite shingles. The breezeway and garage/utility room are add ons to the original structure. Aerial photos indicate that these were added on after the home was moved to its current location. The home exhibits wood-framed casement windows. With decorative boxed iron grilles on the front windows. A 1950s barn is also located on the property. It is a gable-style barn likely used for maintaining and storing farm equipment. Other structures on the property include horse training and boarding structures (horse stalls, training rings, horse barn), however, these were constructed in the 1970s.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) date, accession #) View of residence facing south
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: John Condas Allen Matkins, LLP 1900 Main Street, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 93614
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Jennifer Kraft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, CA 92064
*P9. Date Recorded: 9/6/14 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Historic Structure Inventory
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center Project – BFSA 2014 *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 4 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 15839 Carpetner Avenue
B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Foxcroft Farm B3. Original Use: Single-family home B4. Present Use: Single-family home *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish eclectic *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The home was constructed circa 1929 as a single family residence. The home was moved in the 1960s when horse stalls were constructed in its original location. After being moved, the breezeway and garage/utility room were added.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: 1960s Original Location: South of its current location where the horse stalls are currently located *B8. Related Features: A hay barn constructed in 1950, and horse training/boarding structures constructed in the 1970s are located on the parcel.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: Area: Period of Significance: 1920-1940 Dry Farming Property Type: Single family residence Applicable Criteria: None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The residence at 15389 Carpenter Avenue is associated with one individual of potential historical importance. This individual was Dr. Theron “T.C.” Ellsworth. T.C. Ellsworth was the cousin of prominent San Bernardino horse breeder, Rex Ellsworth. T.C. Ellsworth owned the property at 15389 Carpenter Avenue from 1961 to 1973 and is likely responsible for building the horse stable barn structure associated with what is now Foxcroft Farm. Although T.C. Ellsworth was related to Rex Ellsworth, no evidence could be found that would link Rex Ellsworth’s success in horse breeding and racing with T.C. Ellsworth’s property. Rex Ellsworth bred and raced most of his horses in the 1950s, where T.C. Ellsworth’s facility was not even built until 1970. In addition, T.C. Ellsworth’s profession was dentistry rather than horse breeding, training, and/or racing, and horses were likely an investment or secondary occupation. Based upon this assessment, the residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue does not qualify as being associated with any important persons. The residence located at 15389 Carpenter Avenue was designed as a Spanish Eclectic style home prior to 1938. While the residence and the hay barn do meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures, neither structure can be associated with a historic context for the area. In addition, the residence has been moved from its original location at the southern half of the property, to its new location at the corner of Carpenter and Remington Avenues. Once moved, the structure was also expanded. While the same types of materials as the original were used for the additions, the style and mass of the original structure has been lost.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2, HP33
*B12. References: Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center Project – BFSA 2014
B13. Remarks: (Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
*B14. Evaluator: Jennifer Kraft
*Date of Evaluation: 9/6/14
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: 8819 Remington Ave
P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Corona North Date:ND – digital map T 2S ; R 7W ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. San Bernardino c. Address: 15389 Carpenter Avenue City: Chino Zip: 91710 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: This single family residence is located at 8819 Remington Avenue near the intersection of Remington and Vineyard.
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The buildings located at 8819 Remington Avenue consist of a single family residence and barn constructed in the 1950s and a dairy operation constructed in the late 1960s. The residence consists of a 1,678-square-foot single-family home constructed in 1952, a 900-square-foot barn constructed in 1950, a concrete poured-plaster swimming pool added in 1958, and a combined 1,026-square-foot garage and recreation room, with a concrete foundation, constructed in 1971. The home was constructed as a stucco standard frame constructured residence with a concrete foundation, a basement, and a lowpitched, hipped roof. The roof exhibits wide eave overhangs with exposed rafters. The original structure had stucco on the entirety of the home, but the front stucco has been replaced with board and batten siding and brick wainscoating. There is a brick chimney near the entry door of the home. The original shingles were shake, but they have been replaced with composite shingles. Original windows were double-hung screened windows. Five of the original windows remain, the other 10 are aluminum framed. A covered rear porch was added to the home sometime after 1978. It was originally intended to be enclosed, exhibiting cinder block half-walls and a wooden door and window frames extending to the roof. No windows or doors are currently present. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) View of house and garage/recreation room facing south
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: John Condas Allen Matkins, LLP 1900 Main Street, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Jennifer Kraft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, CA 92064
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) *P9. Date Recorded: 9/6/14 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Historic Structure Inventory
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center Project – BFSA 2014 *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 4 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 8819 Remington Avenue
B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single-family home B4. Present Use: Single-family home *B5. Architectural Style: Traditional Minimalist / Ranch *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The home was constructed in 1952 as a single family residence. A porch was added to the home in
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: 1960s Original Location: South of its current location where the horse stalls are currently located *B8. Related Features: A hay barn constructed in the 1950s, and a dairy facility are located on the parcel. The dairy facility was constructed in the 1960s. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: Area: Period of Significance: post-1950s Dairy Properties Property Type: Single family residence Applicable Criteria: None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The residence located at 8819 Remington Avenue was originally designed as a mixture between a traditional minimal and ranch style home in 1952. While the residence and the hay barn do meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures, neither structure can be associated with a defined historic context for the area. The home was first associated with dry farming before the dairy facility was later constructed. The dairy facility and the garage/recreation room located on the property were designed in the same style as the home but do not meet the age threshold to be considered historic structures. The porch that was added to the residence after its original construction has also altered the originally intended mass and style of the structure, negatively affecting the structure’s integrity. 10 out of 15 of the home’s original double-hung screened windows have been replaced with aluminum sliding windows.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2, HP33
*B12. References: Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center Project – BFSA 2014
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Jennifer Kraft
*Date of Evaluation: 9/6/14 (Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center ______
APPENDIX C
Assessor’s Building Records