CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT - BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 3717 FRUIT STREET (NORTH SITE) CITY OF LA VERNE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
C U LT U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
B R A N D Y W I N E RESIDENTIAL D E V E L O P M E N T PROJECT
3717 F R U I T S T R EE T ( N O R T H S I T E )
CITY OF L A V E R N E
L O S ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
February 2021
C U LT U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
B R A N D Y W I N E RESIDENTIAL D E V E L O P M E N T PROJECT
3717 F R U I T S T R EE T ( N O R T H S I T E )
CITY OF L A V E R N E
L O S ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of La Verne
3660 D Street
La Verne, California 91750
Prepared by:
Laura Carias, M.A. and Riordan Goodwin, R.A.
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781‐9310
LSA Project No. LVR2003
National Archaeological Data Base Information:
Type of Study: Records Search, Survey, Architectural Evaluation
USGS Quadrangle: San Dimas, California
Acreage: 2.26
February 2021
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
LSA conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Brandywine Residential Development Project
(north site) located at 3717 Fruit Street in the City of La Verne (subject property, City), Los Angeles
County, California. The assessment included a records search, archival research, field surveys, and this
report. The subject property is approximately 2.26 acres and is currently developed with a single‐
family residence and nursery. The proposed project is the development of 50 attached, interlocking
townhomes (Assessor’s Identification Number [AIN] 8666‐017‐028). The City as Lead Agency for the
project required this study as part of the environmental review process to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine, as mandated by CEQA, whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse
changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area. In
order to identify and evaluate such resources, LSA conducted a historical/archaeological resources
records search, pursued historical background research, and carried out intensive‐level field surveys.
Research found that the property at 3717 Fruit Street is a modest farmhouse associated with the
citrus industry in La Verne. The orange groves that were on site and surrounding the property began
to disappear by 1965, with their complete removal on the subject property by 1977, causing loss of
integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Property owners included Robert L. Davis, past secretary
of the La Verne Water Company, Frank and Hyacinth Kalousek, owners but never residents, and Verne
and Elizabeth Kalousek, successful La Verne business owners. Although prominent citizens of La
Verne, neither Robert L. Davis nor the Kalouseks made significant contributions to the history of La
Verne, the State of California, or the nation. As the subject property is not significant and has lost
integrity, it is not a “historical resource” as defined by CEQA.
Through the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any “historical resources,” as
defined by CEQA, within the project area. However, the residence at 3717 Fruit Street dates to the
early 1900s, may still have associated subsurface refuse deposits (such as a privy or cesspit) and
surface visibility was exceptionally poor. Therefore, the proposed project area is moderately to highly
sensitive for historic period archaeological resources and LSA recommends archaeological monitoring
of all excavations down to a depth of 6 feet.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the historical occupation of the project site, Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training is required. The WEAP training will be administered to all construction personnel
prior to construction activities in order to inform on‐site crews about the proper procedures in
the event of an archaeological discovery. The WEAP training shall be held in conjunction with the
project’s initial on‐site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the
protection of significant archaeological resources. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Community Development Department.
All ground‐disturbing activities in undisturbed soil to a depth of 6 feet shall be monitored by an
archaeological field technician under the supervision of an archaeologist who meets the Register
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) i
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
of Archaeologists (RPA) Qualifications Standards. Prior to construction activities, the archaeologist
shall coordinate with the excavation and grading contractor(s) to determine the anticipated depth
of excavation and the schedule for initial full‐time monitoring. In the event of prolonged negative
results (monitoring has not identified any buried cultural resources), the archaeologist, in
consultation with the grading contractor(s), may scale back monitoring to a schedule approved by
the City.
In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground‐
disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (60‐foot
radius) shall be halted, an exclusionary buffer shall be established, and the archaeological field
technician in coordination with the archaeologist shall evaluate the resource. If any potential
cultural resources are identified during ground‐disturbing activities and the archaeological field
technician is not present, the construction supervisor is obligated to halt work within a 60‐foot
radius around the find and call the archaeological field technician to the site to assess the
significance of the find.
If the archaeological field technician in coordination with the archaeologist determines cultural
resources are 50 years of age or older or that the resources are less than 50 years old but qualify
for exceptional significance pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 4852, the
construction supervisor is obligated to halt work within a 60‐foot radius [exclusionary buffer]
around the find and the archaeologist shall evaluate the resource for significance pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Additionally, the resource(s) shall be recorded on California
Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be
empowered to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow recording, evaluation, and
removal of unearthed resources.
In the event of the discovery of prehistoric resources, the archaeologist, the project applicant, the
City Community Development Department, and interested Native American tribal representatives
(i.e., those who have expressed an interest in the project through the Assembly Bill 52 process
pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21080.3.2) shall confer regarding the appropriate
disposition of the discovered resource(s). Disposition may include curation with a certified
scientific or educational repository in accordance with current professional repository standards.
However, if an agreement on the disposition of cultural resources cannot be reached, the
resource(s) shall be reburied on the project site in an area not subject to further ground
disturbance, with appropriate recordation on the California Department of Parks and Recreation
523 Forms. Work shall not resume within the exclusionary buffer without City authorization and
all subsequent ground‐disturbing activities shall be monitored at the discretion of the
archaeologist.
All cultural resources, including the locations from which they are recovered and to which they
may be reburied, shall remain confidential pursuant to the California Code of Regulations Section
15120(d). A final report containing the significance and treatment of findings shall be prepared by
the archaeologist and submitted to the City Community Development Department and the Native
American Tribe(s) if appropriate. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Community Development Department.
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) ii
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA STANDARD CONDITIONS In the event cultural materials are encountered during earthmoving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. In the event human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to offer recommendations for the disposition of the remains. R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) iii
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... i
STANDARD CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iv
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................... v
FIGURES............................................................................................................................................ v
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
SETTING .................................................................................................................................................. 4
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 4
Climate and Watershed ............................................................................................................. 4
CULTURAL SETTING .......................................................................................................................... 4
Prehistory .................................................................................................................................. 4
Ethnography .............................................................................................................................. 4
History ....................................................................................................................................... 5
METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 9
RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 9
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 9
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY .................................................................................................... 9
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ................................................................................................................. 9
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 10
RECORDS SEARCH .......................................................................................................................... 10
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 10
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY/SENSITIVITY ............................................................................. 12
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ............................................................................................................... 13
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 16
DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................................... 16
California Register of Historical Resources.............................................................................. 16
EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 17
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 19
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................... 19
STANDARD CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 20
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) iv
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX
A: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION (DPR) 523 FORMS
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................... 3
Figure 3: La Verne Cooperative Citrus Association, ca. 1920. ................................................................ 7
Figure 4: 1931 Aerial Photograph showing 3717 Fruit Street. ............................................................. 11
Figure 5: 1977 Aerial Photograph showing 3717 Fruit Street. ............................................................. 12
Figure 6: Subject property, west (right) and north (left) elevations, view northeast (LSA
2021) ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 7: Subject property, north elevation, view south (LSA 2021) ................................................... 13
Figure 8: Subject property, east elevation, view southwest (LSA 2021) .............................................. 14
Figure 9: Subject property, south elevation, view northeast (LSA 2021)............................................. 14
Figure 10: Shed 1, west (left) and south (right) elevations, view northeast (LSA 2021) ...................... 14
Figure 11: Shed 2, west elevation, view east (LSA 2021) ..................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Shed 3, west elevation, view east (LSA 2021) ..................................................................... 14
Figure 13: Shed 4, north elevation, view south (LSA 2021).................................................................. 14
Figure 14: Water tank converted to shed, view north (LSA 2021) ....................................................... 14
Figure 15: Garden shop, south elevation, view northeast (LSA 2021) ................................................. 14
Figure 16: Hot house, west (left) and south (right) elevation, view northeast (LSA 2021) .................. 15
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) v
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the City of La Verne (City), LSA performed a cultural resources study on
approximately 2.26 acres of land located at 3717 Fruit Street in the City of La Verne, Los Angeles
County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The subject property of the study, Assessor’s Identification
Number (AIN) 8666‐017‐028, is located in Township 1 South, Range 8 West, San Bernardino Baseline
and Meridian, as depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Dimas, California 7.5‐
minute topographic quadrangle map (1981). The study is part of the environmental review process
for a proposed residential development. The City, as Lead Agency for the project, required the study
in compliance with CEQA (PRC § 21000, et seq.).
LSA performed the present study to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to
determine, as mandated by CEQA, whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse
changes to any historical/archaeological resources that may exist in or around the project area. In
order to identify and evaluate such resources, LSA conducted a historical/archaeological resources
records search, pursued historical background research, and carried out intensive‐level field surveys.
This report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study.
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 1
Project Location
Project Vicinity
San
Bernardino
County
Project
Los Angeles
County Location
210
§
¦
¨
605
§
¦
¨ §
¦
¨10
à 39
Ã
60
15
Ã
142
§
¦
¨
Ã
72
Ã
57 Orange Riverside
Ã
90
County Ã
71 County
5
§
¦
¨
LEGEND FIGURE 1
Project Location
Brandywine Residential Development Project
0 1000 2000
3717 Fruit Street
Regional and Project Location
FEET
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - San Dimas (1981), CA
I:\LVR2003\GIS\MXD\ProjLocation_Fruit.mxd (1/13/2021)
Amherst St
Iris Cr
Polaris
Wy
Fruit St
Foo
th ill B
lvd
Ave
White
LEGEND FIGURE 2
Project Area
Brandywine Residential Development Project
0 100 200
3717 Fruit Street
Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
FEET
SOURCE: Google (2019)
I:\LVR2003\GIS\MXD\Cultural\ProjSite_Aerial.mxd (1/13/2021)CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
Climate and Watershed
The project region is characterized by a temperate climate, with dry, hot summers and moderate
winters. Rainfall ranges from 12 to 16 inches annually (Beck and Haase 1974). Precipitation usually
occurs in the form of winter rain, with warm monsoonal showers in summer. The nearest natural
source of water was Live Oak Wash, which drains south‐southwest and is now channelized,
approximately 775 feet to the southeast side of the project area.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
Chronologies of prehistoric cultural change in Southern California have been attempted numerous
times, and several are reviewed in Moratto (1984). No single description is universally accepted as the
various chronologies are based primarily on material developments identified by researchers familiar
with sites in a particular region and variation exists essentially due to the differences in those items
found at the sites. Small differences occur over time and space, which combine to form patterns that
are variously interpreted.
Currently, two primary regional culture chronology syntheses are commonly referenced in the
archaeological literature. The first, Wallace (1955), describes four cultural horizons or time periods:
Horizon I – Early Man (9000–6000 BC), Horizon II – Milling Stone Assemblages (6000–3000 BC),
Horizon III – Intermediate Cultures (3000 BC–AD 500), and Horizon IV – Late Prehistoric Cultures (AD
500–historic contact). This chronology was refined (Wallace 1978) using absolute chronological dates
obtained after 1955.
The second cultural chronology (Warren 1968) is based broadly on Southern California prehistoric
cultures and was also revised (Warren 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986). Warren’s (1984) chronology
includes five periods in prehistory: Lake Mojave (7000–5000 BC), Pinto (5000–2000 BC), Gypsum
(2000 BC–AD 500), Saratoga Springs (AD 500–1200), and Protohistoric (AD 1200–historic contact).
Changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing
environment, which begins with gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, continues
with the desiccation of the desert lakes, followed by a brief return to pluvial conditions, and concludes
with a general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals that continue to the present (Warren
and Crabtree 1986).
Ethnography
The project area is within the traditional cultural territory of the Gabrielino (Kroeber 1925; Heizer
1968). Tribal territories were somewhat fluid and changed over time. The first written accounts of the
Gabrielino are attributed to the Spanish mission fathers, and later documentation was by Johnston
(1962), Blackburn (1962–1963), Hudson (1971), and others.
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 4CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA Gabrielino The territory of the Gabrielino included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties during ethnohistoric times, and also extended inland into northwestern Riverside County (Kroeber 1925; Heizer 1968). It encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys, foothills and mountains (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Gabrielino caught and collected seasonally available food resources, and led a semi‐sedentary lifestyle, living in permanent communities along inland watercourses and coastal estuaries. Individuals from these villages took advantage of the varied resources available. Groups moved to temporary camps on a seasonal rotation to collect plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chía, berries, and fruits, and to conduct communal rabbit and deer hunts. They also established seasonal camps along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl (Hudson 1971). The Gabrielino lived in small communities, which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked, extended families occupied each village (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978). Both clans and villages were apparently exogamous, marrying individuals from outside the clan or village (Heizer 1968). Gabrielino villages were politically independent and were administered by a chief, who inherited his position from his father. Shamans guided religious and medical activities, while group hunting or fishing was supervised by individual male specialists (Bean and Smith 1978). The nearest historically known Native American village to the project area was the Gabrielino community of Tooypinga (also described to Alfred Kroeber as Toibi), located approximately 2.7 miles to the south in the general area of Pomona (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996). History The land on which the City of La Verne sits was once part of a Mexican land grant given to Ygnacio Palomares in 1837 by Mexican Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado. The ranch, named Rancho San Jose, comprised 15,000 acres that encompassed what are now the Cities of Pomona, Claremont, Glendora, and La Verne (City of La Verne n.d.). The City of La Verne began as a community founded by Isaac Wilson Lord in 1887. He was a business man who persuaded the Santa Fe Railroad to extend its line through the very same community where he owned a large number of properties. Lord sent brass bands to Los Angeles and San Bernardino to announce a land sale on May 25, 1887, a sale that was later reported as one of the largest land sales in California to that date (City of La Verne n.d.). He offered free rides to the community of “Lordsburg” and 2,500 people came and purchased over $200,000 worth of lots. Construction began immediately and Lord and a group of investors began the construction of a 60‐room hotel. In a span of four months, a post office, newspaper, stores, and water lines were in place. Unfortunately, the residents never came and the hotel was never used (City of La Verne n.d.). In 1889, M.M. Eshelman and George McDonaough, both from the Midwest and members of the Church of Brethren, came to Lordsburg with the sole interest in buying the vacant hotel and using it as college building. They offered to buy the building and 100 lots for $15,000 and upon closing the deal, Eshelman and McDonaugh began a campaign to entice Brethren people to Lordsburg (La Verne R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 5
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA Leader 1970). They took boxcars full with fruits and vegetables grown in California to the annual conference of Brethren in Missouri promising free rides to Lordsburg if they purchased $500 worth of land (La Verne Leader 1970). Their venture proved fruitful and by 1891, La Verne College opened with eight faculty members and 135 students. La Verne then became a town that attracted a large number Brethren people (City of La Verne n.d.). There were an estimated 2,500 residents in La Verne by 1895 and the majority were Brethren (La Verne Leader 1970). North of the town center, many ranchers came to settle in the foothills. One of the first families was the L.H. Bixby family (City of La Verne n.d.). The Bixbys came to Lordsburg from Pasadena in 1883. Setting up a ranch near the foothills, they named it “La Verne” believing the name meant “growing green” or “spring‐like” in French. Upon solving the issue of the scarcity of water, orchards were planted and thrived, thus creating an industry that fared well for the community (City of La Verne n.d.). In 1917, the town of Lordsburg changed its name to La Verne (City of La Verne n.d.). Citrus History As noted in Judy Gauntt Liebeck’s The Life of William Wolfskill (2011), citrus was initially cultivated in California in 1804 by Native Americans under the supervision of Spanish missionaries at the Mission San Gabriel. In the 1840s, William Wolfskill planted the first commercial orange crop in the state with seedlings obtained from Mission San Gabriel. His first grove was just two acres near his adobe in Los Angeles. Over the 1850s and 1860s, Wolfskill expanded his citrus acreage. Once the trees matured and bore fruit, Wolfskill shipped oranges along with his considerable wine and grape exports through the port at San Pedro. Wolfskill’s enterprise has been credited a major catalyst for the commercial cultivation of oranges in the last decades of the 19th century (Liebeck 2011). Commercial citriculture began in earnest after the introduction of the Washington navel orange in 1873. Originally developed in Brazil, the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided Riverside resident Eliza Tibbets two grafted Washington navel trees to test in the semiarid inland climate (Straight 2011). These large seedless oranges had exceptional color and flavor and, moreover, they ripened during winter. When combined with the summer season of Valencia oranges, the Washington navel created an almost year‐round supply of oranges from Southern California. Demand took off in the 1880s and cultivation of the Washington navel spread from Riverside to other inland communities (Straight 2011). Valencia oranges dominated the coastal communities in Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. “By the 1910s California emerged as the world’s principal producer of grapes, citrus and a wide variety of other fruits. Along with the diversification of crops came allied industries, such as canning, packing, food machinery, and transportation services” (California Department of Transportation 2007:55). Early in the industry, orange growers had a limited role in the larger agricultural market. Wholesale produce buyers took charge of all the packing, shipping, and marketing of their oranges, which, by the late 1880s, worked to the disadvantage of the growers (Jacobs 1994:20). Lack of coordination among buyers led to an uneven distribution of oranges to markets, causing extreme fluctuations in prices for growers. Buyers also pushed the risk of shipping citrus on to growers by paying them only for the fruit that was successfully delivered and sold. Growers suspected the buyers of cheating them out of profits from their produce, but without a united presence they could not do anything about it. In response, the growers formed some of the nation’s first growers’ associations and citrus cooperatives in the late R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 6
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA 1880s and early 1890s (Jacobs 1994:20). By 1893, cooperative associations from seven districts formed the California Fruit Growers Exchange (CFGE). The CFGE eventually became known by its “Sunkist” brand, which was introduced in 1905 (LSA 2012). The Mutual Orange Distributors had their origin in June 1906, when Arthur Gregory, a Redlands citrus, barley, and wheat farmer, met with ten other local growers to discuss the formation of a new cooperative. In the year of its inception, more than 1,500 acres of oranges were controlled by the associations that made up the Mutual Orange Distributors (Los Angeles Times 1906). In La Verne, the La Verne Co‐op Orange Association was created by Valentine Peyton, who owned acres of orchards south of Foothill Boulevard. The soil was ideal for growing orange trees and it promoted drainage, a necessary component for navels. The co‐op’s first oranges came to harvest in 1910 and were immediately shipped nationwide (Campbell 2011). One packing house, the La Verne Cooperative Citrus Association, was once the largest citrus packing house handling oranges, lemons, and grapefruits in Los Angeles County and was said to have been the largest in the state. Approximately 1,800 cars of fruit were handled by the association yearly, all marketed by Mutual Orange Distributors, the second largest citrus marketing cooperative in California, using the brands “Pure Gold” and “Silver Seal” to compete with the Sunkist brand (Campbell 2011; Barker 2009). See Figure 3. Figure 3: La Verne Cooperative Citrus Association, ca. 1920. Building likely located at the northwest corner of Fairplex Drive and Arrow Highway, about two miles south of subject property; building no longer extant. (California Historical Society Collection at the University of Southern California) Water was in high demand to keep orchards growing. Oftentimes, orange growers had to haul water from as far away as San Dimas and San Antonio Canyons. Relief came when R.A. Wallace, the owner of 20 acres of orange and lemon groves, purchased an additional 15 acres of unimproved land and put in a well only to be pleasantly surprised to find water. He sold this newly acquired land and water R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 7
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA well to his neighbors at cost. The neighbors formed the La Verne Land and Water Company with all stockholders comprising ranchers in the community. The company later reorganized as the La Verne Water Company, combining with Live Oak Water Company, Mesa Land and Water Company, and La Verne Heights Water Company with F.R. Curtis as President and R.L. Davis as secretary (Brackett 1920:181). By 1919, more than a thousand carloads of oranges, grapefruits, and lemons were being shipped annually. However, by the 1940s, there was a decline in the size and quality of fruit. As a result of this, in combination with the post‐War housing boom, groves began to disappear and be replaced with housing developments. La Verne remained a small college town. Today, it is a community of more than 30,000 residents (City of La Verne n.d.). R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 8
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
On January 8, 2021, the cultural resources records search was conducted for the project area by the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. It
included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within one mile of the
project, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports.
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
LSA completed archival research during the month of January 2021. Research methodology focused
on the review of a variety of primary and secondary source materials relating to the history and
development of the project area. Sources included, but were not limited to, online sources, published
literature in local and regional history, news articles, historic aerial photographs, and historic maps. A
complete list of all references is included at the end of this report. Due to restrictions related to the
COVID‐19 pandemic, LSA was not able to visit archives such as libraries, museums, historical societies,
or public agencies.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
On January 18, 2021, LSA Archaeologist Riordan Goodwin completed a pedestrian survey of the
project parcel. Special attention was paid to areas of exposed soil for surface artifacts and features
and evidence of archaeosols. The purpose of this survey was to identify and document, prior to the
beginning of ground‐disturbing activities, any cultural residues and thus also to identify any area(s)
that might be sensitive for buried cultural resources.
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
On January 18, 2021, LSA Architectural Historian Laura Carias conducted the intensive‐level
architectural survey. During the survey, Ms. Carias took numerous photographs of the exterior of the
building, as well as other features such as associated sheds. In addition, Ms. Carias made detailed
notations regarding the structural and architectural characteristics and current conditions of the
building and associated features. She then conducted a brief reconnaissance survey of the vicinity to
determine whether the project area is within a potential historic district.
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 9CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
RESULTS
RECORDS SEARCH
Results of the records search at the SCCIC indicate there have been 25 previous cultural resources
studies conducted within a one‐mile radius of the project area, none of which included the project
area. Although no cultural resources have been documented in the project area, one prehistoric site
(an artifact scatter, 19‐000402) and at least one historic period built environment resource (a barn,
19‐187734) have been documented within one mile. The prehistoric resource is approximately 0.47
mile (750 meters) northeast of the project area.
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
The property at 3717 was constructed in 1903 according to County of Los Angeles Assessor’s records.
The earliest available aerial photograph of the area dates to 1931 wherein the subject property is
surrounded on all sides by acres of orchards. See Figure 4. The landscape remains largely unchanged
in the 1938, 1949, and 1952 aerials (UCSB 1931, 1938, 1949, 1952). By 1964, orange trees are
beginning to disappear from the subject parcel. More than half of the orange trees have been
removed by 1965, signaling the property’s change of use. The orange trees continue to disappear until
1972 when the majority have been removed (NETR 1948, 1953, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1972). The 1977
aerial shows a much different view with the city now developed at a much larger scale. Lutheran High
School is in its place directly north of the subject property and the parcels to the south and directly
west have been cleared of citrus trees and are vacant (UCSB 2021). See Figure 5. The subject property
appears devoid of any citrus orchards and has been set up as a garden nursery.
According to a review of the available chain of title documentation provided by First American Title
Company (various dates), the first known owners of the subject property were Lucy E. King, John W.
King, Amelia E Smith, and Carrie M. Miller. They sold the property to Emily Chapman, a widow, on
October 29, 1901. She sold the property to Rodney I. Soper on July 3, 1906. Soper and his wife, Emily
then sold the subject property to Robert L. Davis, the secretary of the La Verne Water Company.
Davis’s wife, Nora died in 1950 and her portion of the land was deeded to their daughter, Theo Anne
Davis. The father and daughter duo sold the property to Frank and Hyacinth Kalousek on November
11, 1952.
Frank and Hyacinth Kalousek married on July 21, 1920 and moved shortly thereafter to La Verne from
Kansas (Ellsworth Reporter 1920; La Verne Leader 1970). Frank worked at a food market and later
opened his own grocery store. They did so well that they later purchased a building downtown that
housed a shoe shop and a jewelry store. In 1952, Frank and Hyacinth purchased from R.L. Davis three
orange grove parcels that included the residence located at 3717 Fruit Street and the parcels
immediately to the north and south. The couple never lived in the house and it is presumed that it sat
vacant for many years (Kalousek 2021). Frank and Hyacinth had a son named Verne Nathan, born
October 12, 1931. Verne grew up to marry Elizabeth Tracy on August 14, 1955 (Pomona Progress‐
Bulletin 1955). A newspaper announcing their wedding said they both were teachers at that time. Ms.
Kathy Kalousek, the youngest child of Verne and Elizabeth, says Verne chose to work as a teacher so
he could have summers off to start his garden nursery business (Kalousek 2021). Frank and Hyacinth
sold the parcel to the south (AIN 8666‐017‐027) in the early 1960s and it later became a shopping
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 10CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA center (Kalousek 2021). Verne and Elizabeth were added as joint tenants along with Frank and Hyacinth in 1960, and in 1963, Verne and Elizabeth filed for a fictitious firm name to conduct a wholesale and retail nursery business at their residence under the name Rancho Foothill Nursery (Pomona Progress‐Bulletin 1963). Figure 4: 1931 Aerial Photograph showing 3717 Fruit Street. The major north‐south street is Fruit Street and east west street at a diagonal is Foothill Boulevard (UCSB Aerial Photographs 2021). R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 11
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA Figure 5: 1977 Aerial Photograph showing 3717 Fruit Street. Major north‐south street is Fruit Street and east‐west is Foothill Boulevard (UCSB Aerial Photographs 2021). As faithful and active members of the Lutheran church, Frank and Hyacinth donated the parcel to the north (AIN 8666‐018‐009) in 1970 to the Lutheran Church to construct the second Lutheran High School in greater Los Angeles (La Verne Leader 1970). The subject property continues as part of Rancho Foothill Nursery that is in operation today. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY/SENSITIVITY Visibility was exceptionally poor with almost complete obstruction of the ground surface by gravel and organic debris from the remnant orchard trees and other vegetation. No archaeological resources (or original soil surfaces) were identified within the project parcel. However, it was indicated by the current property owner that an outhouse once stood in the approximate center of the eastern half of the property (Kalousek 2021). The proposed project involves grading and excavation within a parcel containing a residence (and associated agricultural activities) dating to 1903. This time period was prior to the advent of indoor plumbing and institutional waste collection, so there is some potential for the buried outhouse pit to remain along with other intact pre‐World War I refuse deposits. R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 12
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA Furthermore, grading for building construction did not reach current depths until the 1960s, so there is a greater possibility of encountering intact archaeological residues on properties that were constructed prior to this time. Therefore, the project has the potential to affect undocumented historic period archaeological resources; sensitivity for significant subsurface finds is moderate to high. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY The subject residence is a one‐and‐a‐half story, turn‐of‐the‐century farmhouse constructed in 1903 resting on a raised post‐and‐beam foundation located on the east side of Fruit Street (Figures 6 through 16). The building is clad with horizontal wood siding on the first floor and wood shingles on the second floor. It is capped by a steeply pitched side‐gabled roof with flared, boxed eaves and an interjecting gabled roof centered on the west‐facing façade and east elevation. The roof is clad in composition shingles. The west‐facing façade is nearly symmetrical with a partial‐width porch located beneath a secondary shed roof supported by four Doric columns. Fenestration on the first floor consists of a single iron security door flanked by two wood sash, single‐hung windows topped with leaded glass. Above the porch is a balcony featuring a single wood‐and‐gazed door flanked by two wood sash, double‐hung windows. Windows on the other elevations consist of wood sash, double‐ hung windows, contemporary aluminum sash, and vinyl sash sliders. All fenestration is framed with wide wood surrounds. A sun porch was added to the south elevation and was later closed in with vertical board‐and‐batten siding by the current owners. The residence is part of a family‐owned, functioning garden nursery. It is fenced off with a chain link fence to the north, west, and south; the boundary to the east is overgrown with ivy and cannot be seen. There is an asphalt and gravel driveway to the north and west of the residence. A small orange grove was planted north of the driveway around 2010. Located on the property are three sheds, a hot house, an old water tank currently used as a shed, and garden shop. Shed 1 was located on site when the Kalouseks purchased the property in 1952. It is simply a utilitarian building with a front gabled roof and appears to have been constructed using scrap wood. Sheds 2 and 3 are contemporary with shed roofs. They were set in place within the last 30 years. Shed 4 was constructed in the 1950s and a room was added in the 1980s. It features a shed roof and wood siding. There is a water tank on site that was in use when the Kalouseks purchased the property. The side was opened up in the recent past and is currently used for storage. The Garden Shop was built in the 1970s. Figure 6: Subject property, west (right) and north Figure 7: Subject property, north elevation, view (left) elevations, view northeast (LSA 2021) south (LSA 2021) R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 13
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA Figure 8: Subject property, east elevation, view Figure 9: Subject property, south elevation, view southwest (LSA 2021) northeast (LSA 2021) Figure 10: Shed 1, west (left) and south (right) Figure 11: Shed 2, west elevation, view east (LSA elevations, view northeast (LSA 2021) 2021) Figure 12: Shed 3, west elevation, view east (LSA Figure 13: Shed 4, north elevation, view south (LSA 2021) 2021) Figure 14: Water tank converted to shed, view north Figure 15: Garden shop, south elevation, view (LSA 2021) northeast (LSA 2021) R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 14
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
Figure 16: Hot house, west (left) and south (right) elevation, view northeast (LSA 2021)
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 15CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
Based on the research results discussed above, the following sections present the historical
significance evaluation for the 1903 farmhouse and the conclusion on whether it qualifies as a
“historical resource” as defined by CEQA. There are no local criteria for individual properties. No
archaeological resources were identified in the project area.
DEFINITIONS
CEQA (PRC Chapter 2.6, Section 21083.2 and CCR Title 145, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5) calls
for the evaluation and recordation of historical resources. The criteria for determining the significance
of impacts to historical resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines
for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the
California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), National Register of Historic Places
(National Register), or designation under a local ordinance.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for
inclusion in the California Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California, or the Nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient
time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the
events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of time
needed to develop the perspective to understand the resource’s significance (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity, which is defined as “the
authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics
that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Office of Historic Preservation
1999:2). To retain integrity, a resource should have its original location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Which of these factors is most important depends on the
particular criterion under which the resource is considered eligible for listing (California Office of
Historic Preservation 1999).
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 16CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA EVALUATION In summary, the project area is developed with a 1903 turn‐of‐the‐century, single‐family residence once located amongst an orange grove with several associated buildings and structures. The subject property exchanged hands every five to six years before it was purchased by Robert L. Davis in 1912, who was once the secretary of the La Verne Water District. He and his family were owners for 40 years before it was sold to the Kalousek family, who are the current owners. The landscape around the property was relatively unchanged until sometime between 1965 and 1977. Orange groves in the area had been removed, including those on the subject property, and housing developments encroached on the once agricultural land. By 1977, the subject property was no longer part of an orange grove, but now part of a garden nursery business. There are a few alterations on the subject property that include the addition, and later enclosure, of a sun porch to the south elevation of the residence; the replacement of several of the residence’s original windows with vinyl sash windows; and addition of ancillary buildings as necessitated by the garden nursery business. The property was previously surveyed in 1987, but there was no formal evaluation or status code given. Although the subject property is one of the last remaining farmhouses associated with the citrus industry in La Verne, it has lost integrity and therefore does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. Under Criterion 1, this modest 1903 farmhouse is associated with the citrus industry that fueled La Verne’s economy for decades and has a period of significance from 1903 to 1965, the years in which orange groves were still prominent on the subject parcel. The groves began to disappear from the site beginning in 1965 and were completely removed by 1977. Although it is one of the last remaining farmhouses associated with the citrus industry in La Verne, the subject property no longer has integrity of setting, feeling, or association and therefore does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. Under Criterion 2, the property is associated with Robert L. Davis, past secretary of the La Verne Water Company, which is credited with providing much‐needed water to citrus groves in La Verne. The property is also associated with Frank and Hyacinth Kalousek who owned the property, but never lived in it. As faithful and active members of the Lutheran church, Frank and Hyacinth donated the parcel to the north in 1970 to the Lutheran Church to construct the second Lutheran High School in greater Los Angeles. The property is also associated with Verne and Elizabeth Kalousek, owners of the Rancho Foothills Nursery in operation since 1963. Although Robert L. Davis, Frank, and Hyacinth Kalousek, and Verne and Elizabeth Kalousek contributed to the City of La Verne as citizens, their contributions do not rise to the level to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. Under Criterion 3, the property would need to be an exemplary example of an architectural style or associated with a prominent architect. No evidence was found that the subject property is the work of a master architect. It is a modest example of a turn‐of‐the‐century farmhouse and there have been some alterations, including the replacement of original windows causing loss of integrity to materials, but it does retain integrity of workmanship and design. R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 17
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE) FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA Under Criterion 4, it is not a known archaeological site and there is no indication that it has potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. The subject property is not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4. R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 18
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BRANDYWINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NORTH SITE)
FEBRUARY 2021 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDATIONS
Research found that the property at 3717 Fruit Street is a modest farmhouse associated with the
citrus industry in La Verne. The orange groves that were on site and surrounding the property began
to disappear by 1965, with their complete removal from the subject property by 1977, causing loss of
integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Property owners included Robert L. Davis, past secretary
of the La Verne Water Company, and Frank and Hyacinth Kalousek, successful La Verne business
owners. Although prominent citizens of La Verne, neither Robert L. Davis nor the Kalouseks made
significant contributions to the history of La Verne, State of California, or the nation. As the subject
property is not significant and has lost integrity, it is not a “historical resource” as defined by CEQA.
The foregoing report has provided background information on the project area, outlined the methods
used in the current study, and presented the results of the various avenues of research. Throughout
the course of the study, no “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, were encountered within or
adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the City may reach a finding of No Impact regarding built
environment cultural resources, and mitigation measures for demolition of the on‐site structures is
not required.
Through the various avenues of research, this study did not encounter any “historical resources,” as
defined by CEQA, within the project area. However, the residence at 3717 Fruit Street dates to the
early 1900s, may still have associated subsurface refuse deposits (such as the privy or cesspit), and
surface visibility was exceptionally poor. Therefore, the proposed project area is moderately to highly
sensitive for historic period archaeological resources and LSA recommends archaeological monitoring
of all excavations down to a depth of 6 feet.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the historical occupation of the project site, Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training is required. The WEAP training will be administered to all construction personnel
prior to construction activities in order to inform on‐site crews about the proper procedures in
the event of an archaeological discovery. The WEAP training shall be held in conjunction with the
project’s initial on‐site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the
protection of significant archaeological resources. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Community Development Department.
All ground‐disturbing activities in undisturbed soil to a depth of 6 feet shall be monitored by an
archaeological field technician under the supervision of an archaeologist who meets the Register
of Archaeologists (RPA) Qualifications Standards. Prior to construction activities, the archaeologist
shall coordinate with the excavation and grading contractor(s) to determine the anticipated depth
of excavation and the schedule for initial full‐time monitoring. In the event of prolonged negative
results (monitoring has not identified any buried cultural resources), the archaeologist, in
consultation with the grading contractor(s), may scale back monitoring to a schedule approved by
the City.
In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground‐
disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (60‐foot
R:\LVR2003_Brandywine Residential IS‐MND\Technical Studies\Cultural\3717 Fruit St. (North)\CRA (North Site)_20210209_LC_RG_DG.docx (02/10/21) 19You can also read
