ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND HISTORIC EVALUATION REPORT …

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND HISTORIC EVALUATION REPORT

FOR THE

JEERAH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

6231 EAST WIMBLETON COURT, CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA

(APN 093-150-06-00)

Prepared for:

Mr. Yasir Kahf P. O. Box 2956

Corona, CA 92878

Prepared by:

Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. 7969 Engineer Road, Suite 208

San Diego, CA 92111

________________________________ Andrew R. Pigniolo, MA, RPA

January 2016

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND HISTORIC EVALUATION REPORT

FOR THE

JEERAH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

6231 EAST WIMBLETON COURT, CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA

(APN 093-150-06-00)

Prepared for:

Mr. Yasir Kahf

P. O. Box 2956

Corona, CA 92878

Prepared by:

Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc.

7969 Engineer Road, Suite 208

San Diego, CA 92111

Andrew R. Pigniolo, MA, RPA

January 2016

National Archaeological Data Base Information

Type of Study: Cultural Resource Survey and Historic Resource Evaluation

Sites: None

USGS Quadrangle: Orange 7.5'

Area: 2.08 Acres

Key Words: City of Orange, 6231 East Wimbleton Court, Archaeological Survey, Historic Resource Evaluation,

Redeposited Shell, Historic-age Structure

Jeerah Single Family Residential Project Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Evaluation Report Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

A. Project Description...................................................................................................1

B. Project Personnel .....................................................................................................1

C. Structure of the Report .............................................................................................1

II. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING .........................................................................5

A. Natural Setting .........................................................................................................5

B. Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................6

C. Prior Research ........................................................................................................10

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .........................................................................11

A. Research Design.....................................................................................................11

B. Survey Methods .....................................................................................................11

IV. SURVEY RESULTS .........................................................................................................12

V. HISTORIC STRUCTURE EVALUATION ......................................................................16

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................16

B. Ownership and Occupation ....................................................................................16

C. Building Descriptions ............................................................................................17

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................26

VII. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................27

APPENDICES

A. Resume of Principal Investigator

B. Record Search Confirmation

C. Building, Structure, Object Forms

D. Chain of Title Documents

Jeerah Single Family Residential Project Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Evaluation Report Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

1 Regional Location Map............................................................................................2

2 Project Location .......................................................................................................3

3 Project Plans.............................................................................................................4

4 Project Overviews ..................................................................................................13

5 Structure Locations ................................................................................................14

6 Well Overviews .....................................................................................................15

7 House Views, Front ...............................................................................................18

8 House Views, East .................................................................................................19

9 House Views, North ...............................................................................................20

10 House Views, South ...............................................................................................22

11 House Details .........................................................................................................23

12 Garage Overviews ..................................................................................................24

13 Garage Views, West...............................................................................................25

Abstract

Jeerah Single Family Residential Project Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Evaluation Report Page iii

ABSTRACT Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. conducted a cultural resource survey and historic structure

evaluation for the proposed Jeerah Single Family Residential Project in the City of Orange. The

survey included the entire project area, and the historic structure evaluation addressed the two

standing structures within the project area. The cultural resource project included a records

search, literature review, examination of historic maps, chain-of-title research, and the cultural

resource survey of the project area.

The current survey program was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines. The City of Orange will serve as lead agency for the

project and CEQA compliance.

A records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California

State University, Fullerton. The record search indicated that five cultural resources have been

recorded within a one-half mile radius of the project area, but no resources are recorded in, or

directly adjacent to the project. The project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural

resources. Nine previous investigations have been conducted within one-half mile but none on

or adjacent to the project area.

A cultural resource survey of the project area was conducted on December 28, 2015 by Mr.

Andrew R. Pigniolo. The survey included a surface walk-over of the entire project area in 5 to

10 m interval transects. The survey was constrained by the presence of fill soil over some areas

while other areas were heavily graded and disturbed. Overall surface visibility averaged 70

percent with limited vegetation cover. Grading associated with past cut and fill activity was

evident throughout the project.

The survey resulted in the identification of moderate to small amounts of non-cultural marine

shell in imported fill. A well whose current makeup is of recent age is also present on the

property. No prehistoric or historic archaeological material was identified within the project

area.

Two structures of historic age (JS-H-1 and JS-H-2) were identified within the project area.

These represent a single family residential structure and an associated garage. These structures

were evaluated for historic significance. Based on a lack of integrity, insignificant design

qualities, and lack of association with events or persons of historical significance, these

structures were not recommended as eligible for the California Register of Historical resources

(California Register) or local registers.

Structures JS-H-1 and JS-H-2 do not qualify as significant under the California Register of

Historical Resources (California Register) Guidelines used for CEQA review because of their

lack of integrity and because they lack other criteria used for evaluating eligibility to the

California Register. Significant impacts to cultural resources will not result from this project.

I. Introduction

Jeerah Single Family Residential Project Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Evaluation Report Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Project Description

The 2.08 acre project area is located in the eastern portion of the City of Orange in Orange County (Figure 1). The project is located east of State Route (SR) 55 and south of Chapman Avenue. The project area is on the north side of Canyon View Avenue at 6231 East Wimbleton Court. It is located in the north east quarter of Section 35 in Township 4 South, Range 9 West. The project area is shown on the Orange USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Figure 2) The proposed project is a residential development on the 2.08-acre project site. The project involves subdividing the approximately 91,476 sq. ft. parcel into eight (8) numbered lots and two lettered lots. Lot areas range from 6,000 sq. ft. to 16,000 sq. ft. The numbered lots will be developed with eight custom homes ranging in size from 3,000 sq. ft. to 3,800 sq. ft., including garages (Figure 3). Lot A will be developed with the clubhouse and associated common area; Lot B will be developed as a street and cul-de-sac. The project will be developed in two phases. The current survey and historic evaluation program was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines. The City of Orange will serve as lead agency for the project and CEQA compliance. The archaeological survey was conducted to determine if any cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) or significant under CEQA would be affected by this project. Historic-age structures identified during the survey were evaluated for California Register eligibility. B. Project Personnel The cultural resource survey and historic evaluation program was conducted by Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. (Laguna Mountain), whose cultural resources staff meets state and local requirements. Mr. Andrew R. Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator for the project. He also conducted the survey and prepared this technical report. Mr. Pigniolo meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards for qualified archaeologists and criteria for architectural historian. Mr. Pigniolo has an MA degree in Anthropology from San Diego State University and has more than 35 years experience in the southern California region. His resume is included in Appendix A.

C. Structure of the Report

This report follows the State Historic Preservation Office’s guidelines for Archaeological

Resource Management Reports (ARMR). The report introduction provides a description of the

project and associated personnel. Section II provides background on the project area and

previous research. Section III describes the research design and survey methods while Section

IV describes the survey results. Section V provides the background history and evaluation of the

historic-age structures within the project area. Section VI provides a summary and

recommendations.

0 12.5 25M I L E S

Figure 1Regional Location Map

N

PACIFIC O

CE

AN

Anza BorregoState Park

Joshua TreeNational Park

CAMP PENDLETONCAMP PENDLETON

Salton Sea

reviR odarolo

C

9494

6262

5

5

15

15

10

10

8

7878

7676

7878

7474

MEXICO

ARIZONA

IMPERIALCOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

ORANGECOUNTYORANGECOUNTY

LOSANGELESCOUNTY

LOSANGELESCOUNTY

SAN BERNARDINOCOUNTY

Calexico

Mexicali

El Centro

Yuma

Blythe

Escondido

Oceanside

El CajonSan

Diego

Julian

IndioCoachella

PalmSprings

Banning

Victorville

LagunaBeach

San Bernardino

Riverside

Hemet

Anza

SanMarcos

Poway

Tijuana

ChulaVista

Tecate

Ocotillo

PROJECTLOCATION

Source: USGS 7.5' Orange Quadrangle

O0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Figure 2Project Location

Project Area

Figure 3Project PlanN

Source: Hafeez Consulting, Sheet G-01.0 (9/21/15)

II. Natural and Cultural Setting


II. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING

The following environmental and cultural background provides a context for the cultural

resource inventory and historic evaluation.

A. Natural Setting

The project area is located in Orange County, near the northwestern end of the Santa Ana

Mountains. The project is located in a canyon area. Based on historic mapping and aerial

photography, most, of this area has been previously disturbed by cut and fill activity. Most of

the property is artificially terraced and covered with non-native vegetation. Project elevations

range from 460 to 520 feet above mean sea level.

The geomorphology of the project area is largely a product of the region's geologic history.

During the Jurassic and late Cretaceous (>100 million years ago) a series of volcanic islands

paralleled the current coastline in the region. The remnants of these islands stand as Santiago

Peak to the southeast of the project among others. This island arc of volcanos spewed out vast

layers of tuff (volcanic ash) and breccia that have since been metamorphosed into hard rock of

the Santiago Peak Volcanic formation. These fine-grained rocks provided a regionally important

resource for Native American flaked stone tools.

As the Peninsular Batholith rose, it warped and metamorphosed the overlying sediments,

forming the Bedford Canyon Metasediments. Bedford Canyon Metasediments occur as very

hard black, often banded, rock with a good concoidal fracture. This material occurs in the Santa

Ana Mountains to the southeast and in scattered locations in the foothills to the east of the

project area. This material was used for Native American flaked stone tools.

The project site is entirely underlain by deposits of the El Modeno Volcanics (Morton and Miller

2006). The El Modeno Volcanics represent a middle Miocene volcanic rock unit that is interbedded

with marine sedimentary rocks of the Topanga Formation. In the project area it is dominated by tuff

and tuff breccia (Morton and Miller 2006).

Soils include Alo Clay in the lower portion of the project while slopes on the north side of the parcel

are underlain by Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex (NRCS 2013).

The climate of the region can generally be described as Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and

hot dry summers. Rainfall limits vegetation growth but Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation was

probably present within the project in the recent past and still exists on margins of the project.

Small remaining areas of native vegetation are present, but the majority of the property has been

graded and filled in the past. An intermittent drainage in the canyon through the project area

would have seasonal water to the area.

Animal resources in the region probably included deer, fox, raccoon, skunk, mountain lion,

bobcat, coyote, rabbit, and various rodent, reptile, and bird species. Small game, dominated by

rabbits, was probably relatively abundant in the past.



B. Cultural Setting

Paleoindian Period

The earliest well documented prehistoric sites in southern California are identified as belonging

to the Paleoindian period. The Paleoindian period is thought to have occurred between 12,000

years ago, or earlier, and 8,000 years ago in this region. Although varying from the well-defined

fluted point complexes such as Clovis, the period is seen as a hunting focused economy with

limited use of seed grinding technology. The economy is generally seen to focus on highly

ranked resources such as large mammals and relatively high mobility that may be related to

following large game. Archaeological evidence associated with this period has been found

around inland dry lakes, on old terrace deposits of the California desert, and also near the coast.

Archaic or Millingstone Period

Native Americans during the Archaic period had a generalized economic focus on hunting and

gathering. In many parts of North America, Native Americans chose to replace this economy

with types based on horticulture and agriculture. Coastal southern California economies

remained largely based on wild resource use until European contact (Willey and Phillips 1958).

The Early Archaic period is differentiated from the earlier Paleoindian period by a shift to a more

generalized economy and an increased focus on use of grinding and seed processing technology.

At sites dated between approximately 8,000 and 1,500 years before present (BP), the increased

use of groundstone artifacts and atlatl dart points, along with a mixed core-based tool

assemblage, identify a range of adaptations to a more diversified set of plant and animal

resources. Variations of the Pinto and Elko series projectile points, large bifaces, manos and

portable metates, core tools, and heavy use of marine invertebrates in coastal areas are

characteristic of this period, but many coastal sites show limited use of diagnostic atlatl points.

Major changes in technology within this relatively long chronological unit appear limited.

Several scientists have considered changes in projectile point styles and artifact frequencies

within the Early Archaic period to be indicative of population movements or units of cultural

change (Moratto 1984) but these units are poorly defined locally due to poor site preservation.

Late Prehistoric Period

Approximately 2,000 years ago, Shoshonean groups are thought to have migrated into southern

California. These people spoke a Takic language, a sub-family of the Uto-Aztecan family; the

descendants of whom include the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, Luiseño, and Serrano. The Late

Prehistoric period in San Bernardino County is recognized archaeologically by smaller projectile

points, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremation, the introduction of ceramics and

an emphasis on inland plant food collection and processing, especially acorns. Inland semi-

sedentary villages were established along major water courses, and montane areas were

seasonally occupied to exploit acorns and piñon nuts, resulting in permanent milling stations on

bedrock outcrops. Mortars for acorn processing increased in frequency relative to seed-grinding

basins.



Gabrielino

The Native American people who occupied most of the Los Angeles basin and adjacent regions at the time of Spanish contact are referred to as the Gabrielino. This name was given to them by the Spanish in reference to the San Gabriel Mission, one of the two major Spanish missions established in Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). The native name for these people and the modern descendants is Tongva. Although the area occupied by the Gabrielino is considered to have been one of the most environmentally favored in southern California and the Gabrielino are considered to have been one of the wealthiest and most influential cultural groups in the area, much less is known about them because the population was decimated early on (Kroeber 1925). The territory inhabited by the Gabrielino at Spanish contact encompassed Los Angeles County, northern Orange County, and parts of western San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The eastern boundary with the Serrano people was somewhere in the San Bernardino area. The Gabrielino relied heavily upon the exploitation of wild plant resources (Johnston 1962). Evidence about population size and density is scant. The group possibly had more than 50 or 100 mainland villages with an average population of 50-100 per village (Bean and Smith 1978). These estimates fit in with Kroeber's estimate that in 1770 the population was about 5,000. Like other Native Californians the Gabrielino wove baskets for many uses, although few baskets authentically assignable to them have been preserved (Kroeber 1925). No pottery was made by the Gabrielino until the mission days (Kroeber 1925:628). Few details are known with certainty regarding the Gabrielino social and political systems due to early severe disruptions of traditional culture following Spanish contact. It appears that a moiety system similar to nearby groups existed (Bean and Smith 1978). The available data indicate that the Gabrielino were characterized by three hierarchically ordered social classes: an elite that included chiefs, their immediate families, and the very rich; a middle class from fairly well-to-do and long-established lineages; and a third class of everyone else (Bean and Smith 1978). Villages were usually autonomous, and the dominant lineage's leader was usually the village chief. Sometimes a single chief maintained leadership over several villages, and a chief's authority was legitimized by his possession of the sacred bundle (Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino are believed to have been highly associated with one of the most popular and widespread religious cults in the southwest. Unfortunately, extremely little ethnohistoric information exists for the Gabrielino on the Jimson-weed or toloache cult, or on Chinigchinich, the important leader responsible for spreading the beliefs and rituals of this religion to other societies (Johnston 1962). The severe cultural experiences and changes that the Gabrielino experienced during the Mission, Post-Mission, and American periods of history are well-described by Johnston (1962). Like many other native populations of the New World, the Gabrielino proved remarkably susceptible to European diseases, even in advance of direct contact or actual settlement. The seemingly low population estimates based on Spanish mission records probably reflect this early depopulation.



Ethnohistoric Period

The Ethnohistoric period refers to a brief period when Native American culture was initially

being affected by Euroamerican culture and historical records on Native American activities

were limited. When the Spanish colonists began to settle California, they established missions to

incorporate Native Americans into the emerging European society.

By the early 1820s California came under Mexico's rule, and in 1834 the missions were

secularized resulting in political imbalance which caused Indian uprisings against the Mexican

rancheros. Many Native Americans left the missions and ranchos and returned to their original

village settlements.

When California became a sovereign state in 1849, Native Americans were recruited more

heavily as laborers and experienced even harsher treatment. Conflicts between Indians and

encroaching Anglos finally led to the establishment of reservations for some Indian populations.

The reservation system interrupted Native American social organization and settlement patterns,

yet many aspects of the original culture still persist today. Certain rituals and religious practices

are maintained and traditional games, songs and dances continue as well as the use of foods such

as acorns, yucca and wild game.

Historic Period

Cultural activities within Orange County between the late 1700s and the present provide a record

of Native American, Spanish, Mexican, and American control, occupation, and land use. An

abbreviated history of the region is presented for the purpose of providing a background on the

presence, chronological significance, and historical relationship of cultural resources within the

County.

Native American control of the southern California region ended in the political views of western

nations with Spanish colonization of the area beginning in 1769. De facto Native American

control of the majority of the population of California did not end until several decades later. In

southern California, Euroamerican control was firmly established by the end of the Garra

uprising in the early 1850s (Phillips 1975).

The Spanish Period (1769-1821) represents a period of Euroamerican exploration and settlement.

Dual military and religious contingents established the San Diego Presidio and the San Diego,

San Gabriel, and San Juan Capistrano Missions. The Mission system used Native Americans to

build a footing for greater European settlement. The Mission system also introduced horses,

cattle, other agricultural goods and implements; and provided construction methods and new

architectural styles. The cultural and institutional systems established by the Spanish continued

beyond the year 1821, when California came under Mexican rule.

The Mexican Period (1821-1848) includes the retention of many Spanish institutions and laws.

The mission system was secularized in 1834 which dispossessed many Native Americans and

increased Mexican settlement. After secularization, large tracts of land were granted to

individuals and families and the rancho system was established. Cattle ranching dominated other



agricultural activities and the development of the hide and tallow trade with the United States

increased during the early part of this period. The Pueblos of Los Angeles and San Diego were

established during this period and Native American influence and control greatly declined. The

Mexican Period ended when Mexico ceded California to the United States after the Mexican-

American War of 1846-48.

Soon after American control was established (1848-present) gold was discovered in California.

The tremendous influx of American and Europeans that resulted, quickly drowned out much of

the Spanish and Mexican cultural influences and eliminated the last vestiges of de facto Native

American control. Few Mexican ranchos remained intact because of land claim disputes and the

homestead system increased American settlement beyond the coastal plain.

City of Orange History

The first European land owner in the area was retired Spanish soldier, Juan Pablo Grijalva, who

built an adobe ranch house on what is now Hoyt Hill. His land extended south of the Santa Ana

River, from the foothills above Villa Park to Newport Beach. The 79,000 acres of land became

known ad Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana after it was passed on to his son-in-law, Jose Antonio

Yorba, and grandson, Juan Pablo Peralta. Their families continued to own the rancho after the

1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo was signed and the rancho boundaries were validated in

1857.

In the early 1860s, an extended family member, Leonardo Cota, borrowed money against his

portion of the rancho and ended up defaulting on the loan to Abel Stearns – the largest

landowner in Southern California. The rancho land had to be partitioned in order for Stearns to

claim Cota’s section. This action took two years to sort out, resulting in the rancho being

divided into one thousand units. Alfred Beck Chapman and Andrew Glassell were Los Angeles

lawyers involved in the settlement, taking shares of land as their fees. They had been purchasing

sections of the rancho since 1864, and by 1870 owned around 5,400 acres in the area that is now

downtown Orange. Chapman had the land divided into tracts of 40 to 120 acres and called it

Richland, due to the rich valley soil.

Andrew Glassell’s brother Captain William T. Glassell laid out the downtown area including a

public plaza, bounded by Chapman and Glassell streets. William was also instrumental in

providing the town irrigation water through the construction of the A. B. Chapman Canal. By

1871, at least a dozen houses had been built in the area. The first school opened 1982, and the

first local store the following year.

Since there was already a town of Richland in Sacramento County, in order to have the town

map recorded and to open a post office, the town was renamed Orange in 1875. A major farming

community, various crops were grown with varying success. Raisin grapes were a primary crop

until the 1886 blight killed most of the vines in Orange and surrounding communities. Orange

groves had been planted in 1873, and fared the best among other tropical fruits that had been

attempted.



By 1880, the Southern Pacific Railroad had built a depot in town and seven years later the Santa

Fe Railroad was competing for customers in the area. This resulted in the reduction of passenger

fares and an influx of visitors from the east part of the country, many who ended up purchasing

land in Orange County. The 1880s were boom times for the town of Orange. The 3-square mile

city became incorporated in 1888. By the end of the 1880s, the boom was over, but farmers

continued to plant orange trees. By 1920, oranges had become the city’s premier crop. Citrus

prices began falling at the onset of the Depression and the city had an economic decline lasting

to the beginning of World War II. The late 1930s brought terrible weather and flooding, causing

damage to farmlands and roadways in Orange.

After the war, thousands of servicemen returned to Southern California where they had been

trained, resulting in the largest growth in the history of Orange County. By 1960, the city

covered 8.3 square miles, and continued to be developed annexing new areas covering nearly 25

square miles by the 1990s. The city continues expanding eastward with a mixture of residential,

commercial, and industrial development within its 38-square mile planning area and 55-square

mile sphere of influence. The city proudly calls itself “a major city with small town ambiance.”

C. Prior Research As the first step in performing the current investigation, archival research and background

studies were conducted including a literature and record search at the local archaeological

repository, in addition to examining historic maps and historic site inventories. This information

was used to identify previously recorded resources and determine the types of resources that

might occur in the survey area.

A records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton (Appendix B). The record search indicated that five cultural resources have been recorded within a one-half mile radius of the project area, but no resources are recorded in, or directly adjacent to the project. The project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Nine previous investigations have been conducted within one-half mile but none on or adjacent to the project area. Historic research included an examination of a variety of resources. The current listings of the National Register of Historic Places were checked through the National Register of Historic Places website. The California Inventory of Historic Resources (State of California 1976) and the California Historical Landmarks (State of California 1992) were also checked for historic resources. No such resources have been recorded in the vicinity of the project area.

III. Research Design and Methods


III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A. Research Design

The goal of this study was to identify and evaluate any cultural resources within the proposed

project alignment and alternatives, so that the potential effects of the project on these resources

could be assessed. To accomplish this goal, background information was examined and

assessed. Based on the records search and historic map check, the cultural resources that might

occur within the project may include both prehistoric and historic resources. Historic structures

appear within the project area on early maps and aerials of the area. Prehistoric cultural

resources could include temporary camps, and shell and lithic scatters.

B. Survey Methods

A cultural resource survey of the project area was conducted on December 28, 2015 by Mr.

Andrew R. Pigniolo. The survey included a surface walk-over of the entire project area in 5 to

10 m interval transects. The survey was constrained by the presence of fill over some areas

while other areas were heavily graded and disturbed. Overall surface visibility averaged 70

percent with limited vegetation cover. Grading associated with past cut and fill activity was

evident throughout the project.

The cultural resources identified during the survey were recorded on a State of California,

Department of Parks and Recreation forms (Appendix C). These records were submitted to the

SCCIC for official resource numbering designation.

IV. Survey Results


IV. SURVEY RESULTS

The survey resulted in the location of two historic-age structures on the property (JS-H-1 and JS-H-2). These structures appear to be a residence and associated garage (Figures 4 and 5). The structures are described in detail in Section V of this report. Much of the lower portion of the property near the structures appears to have originally been a seasonal drainage now covered by imported fill. Geotechnical studies for the project showed this fill to be as deep as 8 to 10 ft. in some areas. Some of this fill includes non-cultural marine shell. Other portions of the property include cut and fill terraces with bedrock exposures. Native soils away from cut areas were shallow due to the original slope of the area. A well is also present on the property approximately 40 ft. north of the house (JS-H-1). It is

possible this well location is historic in age, as some type of structure may have been present at

this location on the 1972 aerial photograph (NETR 1972). Earlier photographs are not clear

enough to indicate its presence/absence. USGS mapping from 1950 (when the residence first

appears) onward never shows a well at this location.

The current well does not represent a historic feature. It appears to date after the 1980s when the area was elevated with fill from nearby grading. The well is currently lined with precast concrete pipe segments that have been cemented together (Figure 6). A precast concrete manhole piece is present on the surface. A cast iron manhole cover was also present (see Figure 6). The manhole cover has an “Alhambra Foundary Co Ltd” mark on the cover. The mark and cover are not chronologically diagnostic and this company is currently producing the same type of cover. The lack of surface pumping equipment and piping nearby suggest this well has not been in use recently. PVC piping in the well also indicates the current well is of recent age. Water in the bottom of the well and the PVC pipe connections suggest that the well does not contain historic-age refuse as fill. Because the existing well does not appear to be of historic age it was not recorded and does not represent a historic resource. No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified within the project area during the survey.

Figure 4Project Overviews

b. Site Conditions, Looking North (PR-05287-094)

a. Project Overview Showing Structures, Looking South-southwest (PR-05287-093)

Figure 5Project on Aerial

0 50 100F E E T

N

HouseGarage

ProjectBoundary

Figure 6Well Overviews

b. Interior View of Well (PR-05287-084)

a. View of Above Ground Portion of Well (PR-05287-085)

V. Historic Resource Evaluation


V. HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION A. Introduction

The following discussion provides a description of ownership of the property in addition to a

detailed description of the structures themselves. The Chain of Title documentation is provided

in Appendix D.

B. Ownership and Occupation

County assessor records indicate an initial construction date of 1930 for the structures now at

6231 East Wimbleton Court. In 1930, the property was owned by William M. Mills and his wife

Addie A. Mills (Chain of Title), however, they were not living on the property. Presumably the

structures were initially constructed as a second home and/or in association with a farm. In

1930, William and Addie were living at 416 Park Road in Orange (USCB 1930). They were an

older couple (both age 63). William M. Mills’ occupation was listed as farmer and they live on a

farm. They were living with two daughters, a son, and a granddaughter (USCB 1930). One of

the daughters was named Evanalia.

In 1930, James W. Farley and his wife Evanalia Mills Farley lived at 129 South Jameson Street

in Orange (USCB 1930). They were both in their early thirties and were renting and living with

a three year old son named William. James Farley was working as a laborer doing carpet work

(USCB 1930). It seems likely that James and Evanalia Farley moved to the now 6231 East

Wimbleton Court residence sometime after 1931 since they were still listed at the South Jameson

Street address in 1931 (City Directory).

By 1940, James and Evanalia Farley were living in Orange Park Acres with no street or address

listed. Although slightly outside the current boundaries of Orange Park Acres, this probably

refers to the location of the current structure at 6231 East Wimbleton Court. The residence is not

listed as a farm and they are listed as renting. It is indicated that they were living in the same

house in 1935. They are living in the house with now three children. James Farley’s occupation

is listed as carpet layer (USCB 1940).

On December 8, 1938 and again on October 28, 1947, William M. Mills and Addie A. Mills

transferred the project property to their daughter Evanalia Mills Farley through a Grant Deed

(Chain of Title).

The 1940 census shows William and Addie Mills living probably at the same location on Park

Road although the street number has changed to 357. They were both 73 years old and one 50

year old daughter was still living with them. No occupation is listed, so William Mills was

presumably retired.

The structures first appear on historic aerial photographs in 1946 (NETR 1946). The aerial

shows the structure without the front porch and with only a partial shed roof extension in the rear

(NETR 1946).



The 1947 City Directory shows James and Evanalia Farley living on Mills Drive off East Old

Chapman Ave. (the current project area). James Farley is listed as a carpet cleaner (City

Directory 1947).

The structure first appears on the 1950 edition of the Orange 7.5’ quadrangle map (USGS 1950).

On June 23, 1958, Evanalia Farley granted the property to Jerald E. Naylor and his wife Marion

H. Naylor (Chain of Title).

A public records index covering the years 1950 to 1993 shows Jerald E. Naylor at 19841 East

Mills Drive (original address for the current project) at some point during that period. It is likely

that Jerald E. Naylor and Marion H. Naylor lived at the address between 1958 and 1986.

Title of the property transferred to Richard and Eileen Vining in 1986 (Chain of Title). By 1994

aerial photographs indicate use of the property has been terraced and filled and was used as a

nursery for potted trees (NETR 1994, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2012).

The property was sold to the current owners in 2014 (Chain of Title).

C. Building Descriptions

House

Two structures are present at 6231 East Wimbleton Court. They appear to have originally served

as a residence and a garage. The residential structure was initially a Tudor Revival cottage based

on its large arched fixed lattice light window and relatively high gabled roof line (Figure 7). The

826 sq. ft., three-room structure is wood-frame with a composition tile roof. The original

foundation appears to have been a combination of poured concrete and post and beam with a

crawl space understory. More recent additions of a row of concrete block and cement around

portions of the exterior on the northwest side may have been used to support failings of the

original foundation.

A small shed roof extension on one side of the rear of the structure may date to the original

structure or be an addition soon after (Figure 8). This partial shed extension appears as early as

1946 on the aerial photograph (NETR 1946). The panel door and horizontal sliding sash

windows in this portion of the extension (see Figure 8) appear similar in age to the single hung

wood sash windows on the remainder of the original part of the structure.

The northeastern portion of the rear shed roof extension appears to be a more recent addition to

the house (Figure 9). It first appears on the 1980 aerial of the area (NETR 1980). The

aluminum-framed sliding sash windows do not match the wood sash in the remainder of the

original portion of the house and the eve spacing also is inconsistent with the other portion of the

shed roof extension. The roof edge at the southeast corner of the structure also does not match

the roof edge of the original structure, again suggesting the entire shed roof portion is a later

addition to the original cottage.

Figure 7House Views, Front

b. Decorative Window, Close-up (PR-05287-054)

a. House Front Overview, Looking East (PR-05287-065)

Figure 8House Views, East

b. Close-up of East Side Door and Windows (PR-05287-035)

a. East Side Overview (PR-05287-018)

Figure 9House Views, North

b. Close-up of East Side Addition, Looking South (PR-05287-046)

a. North Side Overview (PR-05287-040)



A small brick fireplace and chimney are present on the southwest side of the structure (Figure

10). Original windows appear to be single-hung wood sash. In addition to the decorative fixed

lattice light window at the front of the structure, a decorative glass pane with diamond pattern is

present in the window next to the chimney accentuating the Tudor motif (Figure 11).

The high gable roof appears to contain a second story addition to what was probably originally

an attic (see Figure 9). Two generations of exterior staircases are apparent on the north side of

the structure. An older staircase from the direction of the back of the structure is outlined in the

exterior paint. An apparently newer steep staircase from the direction of the front of the

structure appears to have been the most recent access. Both these exterior stairways suggest the

room in the second story was not original to the house.

Flush window and door framing in relation to the exterior plaster of the structure suggest that the

original siding of the structure may have been wood and the plaster finish may be a later

addition.

The porch on the front of the house is also a later addition (see Figure 7). It first appears on the

1980 aerial photograph of the structure (NETR 1980). As can be seen from the way it covers the

top edge of the front window frame and its attachment to the eave over the exterior plaster, it was

a poorly designed addition to the structure. It dips sharply to the north and extends across most

of the front of the structure.

The house structure appears to have been modified in several ways from its original form.

Again, it is uncertain if the shed roof extension in the rear is original. A second addition to this

shed roof extension was added most-likely in the 1970s, so that the shed roof line now extends

across the entire rear of the structure. The addition of the front porch also appears to date from

the 1970s. The use of the second story and two sets of exterior staircases also appear to be later

additions to the structure, and the plaster finish may also not be original.

Garage

The original portion of the 468 sq. ft. garage is a wood frame structure with a moderate gabled

roof on a poured concrete foundation. It has horizontal wood siding with a sliding garage door

entrance (Figure 11). The roof is composition shingle. The rear of the structure includes an

addition with a second story and two single hung wood sash windows (see Figure 11). The

addition does not match the original foundation and siding board width. The addition also

includes a second door and roof extension over the doorway (Figure 12).

Figure 10House Views, South

b. South Side, Looking Northeast (PR-05287-058)

a. South East Aspect, Looking Northwest (PR-05287-034)

Figure 11House Details

b. South Side Decorative Window, Looking West (PR-05287-060)

a. Front Porch Addition above Decorative Window, Looking Northeast (PR-05287-079)

Figure 12Garage Overviews

b. South Side View, Looking West-northwest (PR-05287-004)

a. East and North Sides, Looking Southwest (PR-05287-012)

Figure 13Garage Views, West

b. West Side Close-up Showing Northern Addition Joint, Looking East (PR-05287-022)

a. West Side Overview, Looking East-northeast (PR-05287-028)

VI. Summary and Recommendations


VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of the project was to identify resources that may be impacted by the proposed Jeerah

Single Family Residential project. The cultural resource survey identified two historic-age

structures within the project area.

The house at 6231 East Wimbleton Court represents a Tudor Revival style cottage originally

dating from 1930. The structure has significant additions that may date to the 1970s. The

additions and changes have significantly reduced the integrity of the structure. The garage also

has a significant addition on the rear of the structure reducing its original integrity. The

structures are not associated with events or persons that have made a significant contribution to

the broad patterns of California or the City of Orange’s history and cultural heritage. The 6231

East Wimbleton Court structures lack the integrity and/or qualities to qualify them as eligible for

nomination to the California Register or local registers.

Structures JS-H-1 and JS-H-2 do not qualify as significant under the California Register of

Historical Resources (California Register) Guidelines used for CEQA review because of their

lack of integrity and because they lack other criteria used for evaluating eligibility to the

California Register. Significant impacts to cultural resources will not result from this project.

VII. References


VII. REFERENCES

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith

1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 8, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C.

Johnston, Bernice Eastman

1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, Alfred L.

1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin No. 78, Bureau of American

Ethnology, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

Moratto, Michael J.

1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Morton, Douglas M., and Fred K. Miller

2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles,

California. U. S. Geological Survey.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR)

Var. Historic Aerials. Electronic document, www.historicaerials.com

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

2013 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

Phillips, George Harwood

1975 Chiefs and Challengers: Indian Resistance and Cooperation in Southern

California. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation.

1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation,

Sacramento, California.

1992 California Historical Landmarks. Department of Parks and Recreation,

Sacramento California.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB)

1930-1940 Population Schedule Records. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

Washington D.C.

Willey, G. R., and P. Phillips

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press.

APPENDICES

A. Resume of Principal Investigator

B. Record Search Confirmation

C. Building, Structure, Object Forms

D. Chain of Title Documents

APPENDIX A

RESUME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Laguna Mountain Environmental Appendix A

ANDREW R. PIGNIOLO, M.A., RPA Principal Archaeologist

Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. Education

San Diego State University, Master of Arts, Anthropology, 1992 San Diego State University, Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 1985

Professional Experience

2002-Present Principal Archaeologist/President, Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc., San Diego

1997-2002 Senior Archaeologist, Tierra Environmental Services, San Diego 1994-1997 Senior Archaeologist, KEA Environmental, Inc., San Diego 1985-1994 Project Archaeologist/Senior Archaeologist, Ogden Environmental and

Energy Services, San Diego 1982-1985 Reports Archivist, Cultural Resource Management Center (now the South

Coastal Information Center), San Diego State University 1980-1985 Archaeological Consultant, San Diego, California

Professional Affiliations

Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA; formerly called SOPA), 1992-present Qualified Archaeology Consultant, San Diego County Qualified Archaeology Consultant, City of San Diego Qualified Archaeology Consultant, City of Chula Vista Qualified Archaeology Consultant, Riverside County Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology

Qualifications

Mr. Andrew Pigniolo is a certified archaeology consultant for the County and City of San Diego. He has received 40 hour HAZWOPPER training and holds an active card for hazardous material work. Mr. Pigniolo has more than 30 years of experience as an archaeologist, and has conducted more than 700 projects throughout southern California and western Arizona. His archaeological investigations have been conducted for a wide variety of development and resource management projects including military installations, geothermal power projects, water resource facilities, transportation projects, commercial and residential developments, and projects involving Indian Reservation lands. Mr. Pigniolo has conducted the complete range of technical studies including archaeological overviews and management plans, ethnographic studies, archaeological surveys, test excavations, historical research, evaluations of significance for National Register eligibility, data recovery programs, and monitoring projects.


REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Centinela Solar Project, Imperial County, California (KP Environmental, Inc.) Mr. Pigniolo

served as the Principal Investigator for a cultural resource survey of more than 240 acres of agricultural land near Mt. Signal, California. The survey was conducted in multiple phases based on crop conditions and surface visibility within various parcels. The project included surveys of highly impacted agricultural lands. Historic-age agricultural features were identified within several parcels. Cultural resources within the proposed project area were recorded during the survey and recommendations for impact avoidance were made. This project was conducted under both Federal and State environmental requirements.

Princess Street Monitoring and Data Recovery Project at the Spindrift Site (City of San

Diego). Mr. Pigniolo served as a Principal Investigator of an archaeological monitoring and data recovery program at the Spindrift Site in the community of La Jolla in the City of San Diego. The effort was initially to provide archaeological monitoring of a utility undergrounding project. The presence of the major prehistoric village site within the project alignment quickly became evident prior to construction monitoring and a data recovery plan was prepared prior to the start of work. Monitoring was conducted until the site was encountered. The data recovery plan was immediately implemented, so that data recovery could progress while construction excavation continued on other portions of the project. Data recovery included the excavation of 25 controlled units and the water screening of 100 percent of the archaeological site material impacted during trenching. More than 40 fragmented human burials were encountered. Working with Native American monitors and representatives, the remains were repatriated.

Hill Street Undergrounding Project, Point Loma, California (City of San Diego). Mr.

Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator of an archaeological monitoring project of utility undergrounding in the community of Point Loma. The project was located in an urban environment under city streets. Archaeological monitoring identified two prehistoric sites with high levels of integrity. Testing included the excavation of four units to evaluate the significance of these resources and mitigate project effects. A hearth feature, shell and a variety of prehistoric artifacts were recovered and additional impacts to the sites were avoided by reducing trench depth.

Center City Development Corporation Area 1 Utility Undergrounding Project, San Diego,

California (City of San Diego). Mr. Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator of an archaeological monitoring project including the undergrounding of residential and commercial utilities in the community of Logan Heights in San Diego. The project was conducted under CEQA and City of San Diego guidelines. Historic streetcar lines were encountered along with sparse historic trash deposit, but adverse impacts did not occur and no further work was recommended.

Mission Hills Sever Group 664 Project (Lamprides Environmental Organization) Mr. Pigniolo

was the Principal Investigator for an archaeological monitoring project for a sewer line replacement in the community of Mission Hills in the City of San Diego. The project included archaeological construction monitoring in an urban environment. The project was located near the Old Town area of San Diego, but steep slopes and previous pipelines in the area resulted in an absence of cultural materials encountered.


City of San Diego Sever Group 783 Project, San Diego, California (Orion Construction

Company) Mr. Pigniolo was the Principal Investigator for an archaeological monitoring project for a sewer line replacement in the eastern portion of the City of San Diego. The project included archaeological construction monitoring in an urban environment. Shallow soils and previous pipeline disturbance in the area resulted in an absence of cultural materials encountered (2006-2007)

All American 105 Race Project, West Mesa, Imperial County, California (Legacy 106, Inc.)

Mr. Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator, report author, and crew chief for an archaeological survey for a proposed off-road vehicle race course in the West Mesa area of Imperial County. The survey covered Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and included close coordination with BLM staff. The survey included a proposed 7.5 mile course with a very short time-frame. The goal was project alignment adjustment and realignment to avoid resource impacts where possible. A variety of prehistoric cultural resources including 10 sites and 7 isolates were encountered. Human remains were identified and avoided. The race route was realigned to avoid significant resource impacts allowing the race to proceed on schedule.

Victoria Loop Road Survey, Alpine, San Diego County, California (Alpine Fire Safe

Council) Mr. Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator of an 85-acre cultural resource survey in the Alpine area of San Diego County. The survey identified six cultural resources within the project area including prehistoric lithic scatters, an historic well, and historic artifact scatters. All resources were flagged and marked for avoidance during the vegetation treatment program. The Bureau of Land Management served as Federal Lead Agency for the project.

Spirit of Joy Church Project Testing Program, Ramona, San Diego County, California (Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church) Mr. Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator and Project Manager a cultural resource testing program at site CA-SDI-17299. The site was a sparse temporary camp. The project included surface collection and subsurface testing. Subsurface deposits were not identified within the project area and the site material was recovered during testing. Construction monitoring was recommended to address alluvial soils within other portions of the project area.

Alpine Fire Safe Council Brush Management Monitoring Project, Alpine Region, San

Diego County, California (Alpine Fire Safe Council) Mr. Pigniolo served as Principal Investigator for a cultural resources monitoring and protection program on four project areas surrounding Alpine, California. Cultural resources identified during previous surveys within the vegetation treatment areas were flagged for avoidance. The project included hand clearing and chaparral mastication near residential structures to create a fire buffer zone. Vegetation removal was monitored to ensure cultural resources obscured by heavy vegetation were not impacted by the project and that all recorded cultural resources were avoided. The Bureau of Land Management served as Lead Agency for the project.

APPENDIX B

RECORD SEARCH CONFIRMATION

South Central Coastal Information Center California State University, Fullerton Department of Anthropology MH-426 800 North State College Boulevard

Fullerton, CA 92834-6846 657.278.5395

California Historical Resources Information System Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura and San Bernardino Counties

[email protected] _____________________________________________________________________________ 8/27/2015 SCCIC File #: 15348.1429 Teresa Robertson Enviro Assessment PC P.O. Box 1154 Bonner Ferry ID 83805 Re: Jeerah Single Family Residential, 6231 East Wimbleton Court The South Central Coastal Information Center received your records search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Orange, CA USGS 7.5’ quadrangle. The following summary reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a ½-mile radius. The search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (SHL), the California Register of Historical Resources (CAL REG), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Historic Properties Directory (HPD) listings were reviewed for the above referenced project site. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS SUMMARY

Archaeological Resources Within project area: 0

Within project radius: 5 Built-Environment Resources Within project area: 0

Within project radius: 0 Reports and Studies Within project area: 0

Within project radius: 9 OHP Historic Properties Directory (HPD)

Within project area: 0 Within project radius: 0

California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI)


California Historical Landmarks (SHL)


California Register of Historical Resources (CAL REG)


National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)


mailto:[email protected]

Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE):


HISTORIC MAP REVIEW –Anaheim, CA (1896 & 1942) USGS 15’: indicated that in 1896, there was little to no visible development within the project site; however, there was one road within the vicinity of the project. The project site was located within the historic place name of Santiago de Santa Ana. In 1942, there was still little to no visible development within the project site; however, there were three roads within the vicinity of the project area. There was one intermittent stream within the vicinity of the project area. Major roadways nearby included Chapman Avenue and historic place names nearby included El Modena. RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the project areas proximity to recorded archaeological resources and a lack of cultural

resource studies for the project site, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be retained to conduct a survey of the property. Additionally, it is recommended that any historic buildings, structures or object (45 years and older and in the area of potential effect) be identified, recorded, and evaluated for local, state, or national significance prior to the approval of project plans. Finally, the Native American Heritage Commission should be consulted to identify if any additional traditional cultural properties or other sacred sites are known to be in the area.

For your convenience, you may find a professional consultant* at www.chrisinfo.org. Any

resulting reports by the qualified consultant should be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center as soon as possible. *The SCCIC does not endorse any particular consultant and makes no claims about the qualifications of any person listed. Each consultant on this list self-reports that they meet current professional standards.

If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at

657.278.5395 Monday through Thursday 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the

SCCIC number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System, Lindsey Noyes Lead Staff Researcher

http://www.chrisinfo.org/

APPENDIX C

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OBJECT FORMS

DPR 523A (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 3 Resource Name or #: JS-H-1 and JS-H-2 P1. Other Identifier: 6231 East Wimbleton Court

P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted a. County: Orange and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)

b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Orange Date: 2012 T4S;R9W; NE ¼ Section 35; S.B. BM c. Address: 6231 East Wimbleton Court City: Orange Zip: 92869 d. UTM: Zone: 11; NAD83; 427185mE/3738796mN e. Other Locational Data: The project parcel (APN 093-150-06-00) is located on the eastern edge of the City of Orange. The property is located east of Highway 55 and south of Chapman Avenue. The structures are on the north side of Canyon View Avenue. The parcel sits at approximately 470 foot elevation.

P3a. Description: Two structures are present at 6231 East Wimbleton Court. They appear to have originally served as a residence and a garage. The residencial structure was initially a tutor revival cottage with a large arched fixed lattice light window and relatively high gabeled roof line. The structure is wood-frame with a composition tile roof. The original foundation appears to have been a combination of poured concrete and post and beam with a crawl space understory. More recent additions include a shed roof extension and residential use of the second story. The original portion of the garage is a wood frame structure with a moderate gabeled roof on a poured concrete foundation. I t has horizontal wood siding with a sliding garage door entrance. The roof is composition shingle. The rear of the structure includes an addition with a second story and two single hung wood sash windows. The addition does not match the original foundation and siding board width. The addition also includes a second door and roof extension over the doorway The structure is not associated with events or persons that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California or Orange County’s history and cultural heritage. The structures lack the integrity and/or qualities to qualify as a significant historical resource under CEQA Guidelines.

P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2; Single family property P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)

P5b. Description of Photo: Overview of garage & house, looking southwest; 12/28/15; PR-05287-093

P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both

P7. Owner and Address: Mr. Yasir Kahf P. O. Box 2956 Corona, CA 92878

P8. Recorded by: Andrew Pigniolo Laguna Mountain Environmental 7969 Engineer Road, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92111

P9. Date Recorded: 12/28/15

P10. Project Type: Historic evaluation

P11. Report Citation: Andrew Pigniolo. 2016. Archaeological Survey and Historic Evaluation Report for the Jeerah Single Family Residential Project,6231 East Wimbleton Court, City of Orange, California.

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):

State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: JS-H-1 and JS-H-2 Map Name: USGS 7.5' Orange Quad Scale: 1:24000 Date of Map: 2012

DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information

JS-H-1

DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information

State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 3 of 3 *NRHP Status Code 6Z

*Resource Name or #: JS-H-1 and JS-H-2 B1. Historic Name: none B2. Common Name: 6231 East Wimbleton Court B3. Original Use: Residence and garage B4. Present Use: Abandoned

*B5. Architectural Style: Tutor Revival Cottage

*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)

Built circa 1930 (not shown on maps or aerials until 1947 aerial photo). The house structure appears to have been modified in several ways from its original form. Again it is uncertain if the shed roof extension in the rear is original. A second addition to this shed roof extension was added most-likely in the 1970s, so that the shed roof line now extends across the entire rear of the structure. The addition of the front porch also appears to date from the 1970s. The use of the second story and two sets of exterior staircases also appear to be later additions to the structure and the plaster finish may also not be original.

*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: n/a Original Location: n/a

*B8. Related Features: The garage associated with the residence is located to the east of the house. The original portion of the

garage is a wood frame structure with a moderate gabeled roof on a poured concrete foundation. It has horizontal wood siding with a sliding garage door entrance. The roof is composition shingle. The rear of the structure includes an addition with a second story and two single hung wood sash windows. The addition does not match the original foundation and siding board width. The addition also includes a second door and roof extension over the doorway

B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown

*B10. Significance Theme: Unknown Area: suburban Orange

Period of Significance: 1930s Property Type: residence Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)

Possible associated with scattered residential development in the Orange Park Acres area to the north. By 1980 much of the surrounding area was developed and graded. The significant additions and changes to the both the residence and garage has significantly reduced the integrity of these structures. Additionally, the structures are not associated with events or persons that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California or Orange County’s history and cultural heritage. The structure lacks the integrity and/or qual ities to qualify as a significant historical resource under CEQA Guidelines. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)

*B12. References:

Chain-of-title report. B13. Remarks: The current assessment was performed as part of an assessment for residential development.

*B14. Evaluator: Andrew Pigniolo

*Date of Evaluation: 12/28/15

(This space reserved for official comments.)

(Sketch Map with north arrow required.) NORTH

APPENDIX D

CHAIN OF TITLE DOCUMENTS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND HISTORIC EVALUATION REPORT …

Documents

Transcript of ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND HISTORIC EVALUATION REPORT …