Agenda packet — Glendora City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 3 of 6)

The Project would not conflict with the City’s policies to encourage walking, biking, and transit.

The Project would not obstruct the implementation of any of these policies and, in some cases, would support their implementation, as it would improve ease of access and safety of alternative transportation (trails for bicyclists and pedestrians) within Finkbiner Park. The Project is not anticipated to directly increase use of Finkbiner Park, as it is an existing high-use facility. The proposed Project would provide improved physical facilities to existing users of Finkbiner Park.

The same locations and amounts of parking in the immediate area, similar circulation and access, and same types and extent of facilities would be provided. As such, trip generation from operation of the Project would be essentially the same as the existing condition. The Project would not conflict with the City’s policies to encourage walking, biking, and transit. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-64 Environmental Checklist Form b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact. Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the criteria for analyzing transportation (not traffic/circulation) impacts based on a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 743. The Project would not create new land uses that would result in additional VMT, such as a residential, mixed use, or transportation project, which is the intent of the Section 15064.3 requirements. As such, the VMT metric is not applicable to public infrastructure projects. Further, operation of the Project would remain essentially the same as under the existing condition and would not result in increased operational trips, as discussed above. The Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines or the City’s transportation plans and policies. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The Project would not involve any permanent change to the roadway configurations and circulation in the Project area and would not change land use, or traffic related to the land use, on the site that would represent an incompatible use. Operation of the Project would involve periodic maintenance trips, anticipated to be quarterly, that would use the existing circulation system. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not increase traffic hazards or be an incompatible use. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under Threshold 3.9(g), the City maintains an Emergency Operations Center at the Glendora Police Department at 150 South Glendora Avenue, and an alternate Emergency Operations Center is located at the Youth Center (159 North Cullen Avenue) to coordinate City services during an emergency and has designated evacuation routes (Glendora 2008).

Private construction worker vehicles/pickup trucks, delivery vehicles, and haul trucks would access the Project site via North Minnesota Avenue, at an existing ingress point located south of the site. Haul trucks would travel south on surface streets to the I-210 as the nearest freeway travelling west to deposit any solid waste/debris to the nearby landfill in the City of Azusa.

Equipment and material staging would be within the Project site and would not require staging along adjacent public roadways or other areas that would disrupt existing traffic patterns. Parking for construction workers would be at the park or in the immediately surrounding areas. As such, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction activities.

During long-term operation of the proposed Project, public access to and use of the recreation facilities on the site would be the same as in the existing condition. Although there would be new and improved on-site facilities because Finkbiner Park is already intensively used by all segments of the community, the City does not expect a long-term increase in park visitation due to the Project. As such, operation of the Project would not impact emergency access. There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
No Impact. This section evaluates the Project ’s potential for any adverse effects on tribal cultural resources (TCRs). A TCR, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code, is a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Native American tribe. A resource will be considered a TCR if it is, at minimum, eligible to be listed on a national, state, or local register of historic resources; the lead agency has treated the resource as a TCR in past undertakings; and/or is known to hold cultural value to a traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe.

As presented above in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the ½-mile SCCIC records search radius surrounding the Project site footprint was positive for cultural resources. However, no cultural resources identified as TCRs were identified within the boundaries of the Project site.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the SCCIC may not have documentation regarding TCRs near the Project reaches. Additionally, the NAHC completed its SLF search on November 29, 2022. The NAHC SLF identified the presence of Native American traditional sites/places within the immediate vicinity surrounding the site. However, no additional information regarding the resource(s) was on file. For information regarding the traditional sites/places located near the Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-66 Environmental Checklist Form Project site, the NAHC recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation. The result of consultation with local Native American tribes is discussed below under Threshold 3.18(b). Therefore, as discussed further in Section 3.5, there are no cultural resources on the Project site that are currently listed on the CRHR or a local register. The Project would not affect a documented TCR that is listed or eligible for listing on the CRHR or a local register. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation. Because Native American tribes frequently have knowledge concerning important undocumented cultural resources, the lead agency (City of Glendora) submitted Project notification letters to initiate tribal consultation, consistent with the requirements of AB 52. Consultation was initiated by the City on April 19, 2023. The City mailed notification letters to each tribal representative on the NAHC Native American contact list for Los Angeles County, notifying the representatives of the Project and to invite them to participate via consultation. These following tribes were notified of the Project as part of the AB 52 process: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; and the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. The only response received was from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City and Kizh Nation conducted an in-person consultation on May 10, 2023, and consultation was closed with understanding to implement agreed upon mitigation measures.

Although a significant impact on known tribal cultural resources has not been identified, the City would voluntarily implement the actions described in MMs TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3, which recognize the Kizh Nations’ concerns during construction activities; would require the presence of a Native American monitor to observe ground disturbing activity; and provide the discovery protocol upon unanticipated discovery of a TCR for non-funerary/ceremonial and for funerary or ceremonial object. While there would be no significant impact to known tribal cultural resources, MMs TCR-1, TCR-2 and TCR-3 have been included in this IS/MND to facilitate implementation of the voluntary actions. As such, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-67 Environmental Checklist Form Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities A. The Project Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the Project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the Project description/definition and/or required in connection with the Project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods.

Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the Project Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the Project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the Project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

MM TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (NonFunerary/Non-Ceremonial) Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-68 Environmental Checklist Form MM TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. Public access to and use of the recreation facilities on the site with Project implementation would be the same as in the existing condition. Although there would be new and improved on-site facilities because Finkbiner Park is already intensively used by all segments of the community, the City does not expect a long-term increase in park visitation due to the Project. Construction of the Project would minimally increase demand for water for dust suppression. However, this demand would not result in the need for new or expanded water supply infrastructure. Operation of the Project would result in a net reduction in water demand because the new sports fields would be finished with an artificial turf sports surface to conserve approximately six afy of potable water currently used for irrigation.

The Project itself is the construction of new stormwater infrastructure, whose environmental impacts are addressed in this IS/MND. However, implementation of the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of additional or expanded water distribution infrastructure beyond the Project itself. As discussed previously under Threshold 3.10(c)(iii), the Project would not significantly alter the drainage pattern of the site. The Project would install a stormwater capture facility that would intercept a portion of stormwater from the Little Dalton Wash and an LACFCD storm drain, pretreat the stormwater, and divert it into a proposed underground infiltration gallery where the water would infiltrate into the underlying groundwater basin.

Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-70 Environmental Checklist Form Implementation of the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded water, wastewater, storm water drainage (beyond the Project itself), natural gas, electricity or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant effects. There would be less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact. As discussed under Threshold 3.19(a) above, the Project would minimally increase demand for water during construction for dust suppression. However, this demand would not result in insufficient water supplies such that the City would be unable to meet the Project’s demands and existing and foreseeable demands for potable water. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a normal, single dry year, or multiple dry years (five consecutive year drought period) will not compromise the City’s ability to provide a reliable supply of water to its customers. Based on the nominal water use expected during construction, the Project’s demands would be met with existing supplies. There would be a reduced long-term demand for potable water of approximately six afy as the new sports fields would be finished with an artificial turf sports surface. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. Use of the recreation facilities on the site with Project implementation would be the same as in the existing condition. As discussed under Threshold 3.19(a) above, the Project would not generate additional wastewater. The construction crew would be served by portable toilets that would be brought to the site during construction activities and removed at the end of construction activities. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate wastewater treatment capacities. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1.0, clearing, vegetation removal, and other site preparation are estimated to result in approximately 300 cubic yards (cy) of mixed demolition debris and greenwaste, which would be exported over an approximate 10-week period.

An estimated total of 31,560 cy of sediment would be excavated during the remaining construction phases, including installation of the infiltration gallery, over approximately 13.5 months, for a total of 31,860 cy of soil waste. Some of the excavated sediment would be returned as backfill. The demolition debris and excavated sediment would likely be disposed at Azusa Special Waste Services, located at 1211 West Gladstone Street in Azusa, approximately four miles to the westsouthwest. Haul trucks would travel south on surface streets to the I-210, as the nearest freeway traveling west, and continue to the landfill. The Azusa Land Reclamation Facility has a remaining permitted capacity of 52,750,160 cy, and typically processes 604,310 tons per year. The Facility has a projected life of 32 years remaining as of 2021 (Waste Management 2021). As such, the Project’s finite construction waste stream represents a nominal portion (approximately 0.06 percent) of the landfill’s remaining capacity.

Project construction is not anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste with the potential to affect the capacity of regional landfills. Further, all construction activities would be subject to conformance with relevant federal, State, and local requirements related to solid waste Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-71 Environmental Checklist Form disposal. Specifically, the Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted.

The Project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the 2022 Green Building Code, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction-related waste through material conservation and other construction-related efficiency measures.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure the Project’s construction-related solid waste impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operation of the Project would be the same as in the existing condition and would not generate additional solid waste. The volume of waste disposed at Azusa Land Reclamation Facility after diversion would not result in inadequate landfill capacity. As such, the Project is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. e) Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City recycling programs. Specifically, the Project would be subject to AB 939, which requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted, and would be required to comply with Section 4.408 of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Therefore, the Project would comply with all federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As discussed previously under Threshold 2.9(h), the Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designated area or Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2023). The closest fire hazard zones are located approximately 0.8 mile north of the site toward the foothills. The Project site is located within a densely developed, urban context and the land uses between the site and the closest fire hazard zones are primarily urban build up uses such as residential and commercial. Therefore, wildfires that may occur within the nearby foothills would likely be contained prior to reaching the Project site. As such, there would be no impact related to wildfire, and no mitigation is required.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, there are no sensitive biological resources on or near the Project site. Jurisdictional resources impacts associated with Little Dalton Wash would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of MM BIO-1. Also, there is potential for nesting birds and raptors to be present on and near the Project site; therefore, mitigation has been provided to reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors to less than significant levels (MM BIO2).The Project would not degrade the quality of the environment; would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; and would not reduce the number of or restrict the range of a Rare or Endangered plant or animal.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources; 3.7, Geology and Soils; and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, no impacts would occur to known historic, archaeological, tribal cultural, and/or paleontological resources. Potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources and human remains from implementation of the Project would be less than significant through compliance with MM CUL-1. Potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of MM GEO-1. Additionally, although a significant impact on known tribal cultural resources has not been identified, the City would voluntarily implement the actions described in MMs TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 which recognize the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s concerns during construction Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 3-74 Environmental Checklist Form activities and would require the presence of professional Native American monitors to observe all grading operations up to five feet below the surface of native soils and consultation with Kizh Nation of any TCR encountered. While there would be no significant impact to tribal cultural resources, and as such no mitigation is required under CEQA, MMs TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 have been included in this IS/MND to facilitate implementation of the voluntary actions. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact. As shown in the analysis in Sections 2.1 through 2.20 above, all construction-related impacts would be either less than significant or mitigated to a less than significant level. As demonstrated by the analysis in this IS/MND, there would be no long-term significant operational impacts. As such, there is no potential contribution to long-term cumulative impacts from operation of the Project. There are no City sponsored projects within or near Finkbiner Park, and there are no known projects within approximately one mile of the Project site.

Based on the small scale of the Project and limited impacts, only projects ongoing within this relatively close distance could potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

There would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As shown in the analysis in Sections 3.1 through

3.20 above, the Project would not have environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, construction of the Project, including anticipated truck trips, would not result in regional or local emissions of criteria air pollutants that exceed SCAQMD thresholds with compliance with Rule 403, and would result in less than significant TAC emissions (i.e., diesel particulate emissions). Potential adverse vibration impacts during construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM NOI-1. The Project would not displace any homes or divide an established community and would result in greater long-term water conservation. The Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.

4.1.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Glendora
Principal Civil Engineer .............................................................. Maliha Fatima Ansari, PE City Planner ................................................................................................ Mark Carnahan Assistant Public Works Director ............................................................... Chisom Obegolu

4.1.2 CONSULTANTS
Psomas (Environmental Document Preparation)
Project Manager .............................................................................................. Jillian Neary Assistant Project Manager ..................................................................... Jessica Hitchcock Air Quality, Climate Change, and Noise Manager ........................................... Tin Cheung Biological Resources Manager .......................................................................... Marc Blain Regulatory Specialist ................................................................................... David Hughes Cultural Resources Manager ......................................................... Charles Cisneros, RPA Environmental Planner .................................................................................. Megan Larum GIS/Graphics Manager .............................................................................. Jim McPherson GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................... Paul O’Brien GIS/Graphics .............................................................................................. Jennie Ramirez Technical Editor ........................................................................................ Danaé Overman Senior Word Processor .................................................................................. Sheryl Kristal South Environmental (Historic Resources)
Cultural Resources Director ............................................................ Samantha Murray, MA Principal Architectural Historian ........................................................... Sarah Corder, MFA Architectural Historian ....................................................................... Marlena Krcelich, BA

Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 4-2 Document Preparers and Contributors This page intentionally left blank
Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 5-1 References SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022 California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM Version 2022.1.1.20, Developed by Trinity Consultants.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Emissions Factors EMFAC 2021. CARB Web database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/.
———. 2016 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards.

California Department of Conservation (DOC), Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2023a (October 2, last accessed). California Important Farmland Finder.

Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. ———. Williamson Act Status Report 2020-21. 2023b (October 2, access date). Sacramento, CA:

DOC.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Documents/stats_reports/2022%20WA%20Stat us%20Report.pdf.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023 (July 15, updated). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Zone Viewer. Sacramento, CA: CAL FIRE. https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d895 97ab693d008.

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. Mineral Land Classification Map – Aggregate Resources Only – Glendora Quadrangle. [map]. Sacramento, CA: Division of Mines and Geology.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023 (October 3, last accessed). Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). Sacramento, CA: CalEPA.
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023a (October 2, access date) Caltrans Officially Designated Scenic Highways. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htmhttp://www.d ot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. ———. 2023b (October 2, access date). Caltrans State Scenic Highway System Map.

Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa.
———. 2020 (April). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf. ———. 2013 (September) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.

Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2023 (July 21). Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Facility Stormwater Capture Study Technical Memorandum. Los Angeles, CA: Craftwater.

Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 5-2 References Glendora, City of. 2023a (October 3, access date). Park Map/Locator. Glendora, CA: the City. https://www.cityofglendora.org/departments-services/parks-recreation-seniorservices/park-map-locator. ———. 2022 (November 15). Safe, Clean Water Program; Q4 FY21-22 Quarterly Report; Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project. Glendora, CA: the City. https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/reportingapi/api/MapDashboardReportDownload/downloadReport/413———. 2021a (November).

City of Glendora 2021-2029 Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration.

Glendora, CA: the City. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021120003/Attachment/V9lycS. ———. 2021b (June). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Glendora, CA: the City. cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=27970&t=637611779184347536. ———. 2020 (October 15). Safe, Clean Water Program; Feasibility Study Report; Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project. Glendora, CA: the City.
https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projects-module-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/13/212. ———. 2018 (March, revised). Urban Forest Manuel. Glendora, CA: the City. https://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showpublisheddocument/23006/636614535435770 000
———. 2008. Glendora Community Plan 2025. 2008. Glendora, CA: the City. https://www.cityofglendora.org/departments/community-development/general-planspecific-plans.

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). 2016 (January, last revised).

Upper San Gabriel River Enhanced Watershed Management Program Plan. Los Angeles, CA: LARWQCB.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/w atershed_management/san_gabriel/upper_san_gabriel/USGRRevisedEWMP_20160114 .pdf.

Ninyo & Moore. 2022 (September 9). Geotechnical Evaluation, Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project, 160 North Wabash Avenue, Glendora, California. Irvine, CA: Ninyo & Moore.

Psomas. 2023 (April 6). Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project. Pasadena, CA: Psomas. Appendix B.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/southcoast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. ———. 2022 (December). 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10 ———. 2016 (April). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf
Finkbiner Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Environmental Documentation\MND\Finkbiner ISMND-030724.docx 5-3 References ———. 2009. Localized Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/localized-significance-thresholds. ———. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
———. 2003 (September 5). Attachment to BOARD MEETING DATE: September 5, 2003, AGENDA NO. 29. White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissions. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/governing-board/agendas-minutes. ———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. Status of SIP Requirements for Designated Areas, California Areas by Pollutant.
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/ca_areabypoll.html. ———. 1971 (December 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.

APPENDIX A

CALEEMOD DATA FOR AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
1 / 36
Finkbiner Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Pavement Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing, and vegetation removal (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Recirculation stream and landscapeing (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Underground infiltration tank excavation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Sports field construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Underground infiltration tank construction (2025) - Unmitigated Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
2 / 36

3.13. Underground infiltration tank construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.15. Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment equipment, and pump installation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.17. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
3 / 36

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
4 / 36

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
5 / 36

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Finkbiner
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 13.2
Location 160 N Wabash Ave, Glendora, CA 91741, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Glendora
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5048
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.20

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
City Park 3.80 Acre 3.80 0.00 16,553 16,553 — —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
6 / 36
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

7.00 1000sqft 0.16 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.45 15.1 13.2 0.03 0.60 2.38 2.88 0.55 1.06 1.53 4,286 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.45 15.2 13.2 0.03 0.59 2.13 2.72 0.54 0.99 1.53 3,993 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.77 7.95 7.26 0.02 0.31 1.13 1.44 0.29 0.51 0.80 1,995 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.14 1.45 1.32 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.26 0.05 0.09 0.15 330

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.45 15.1 13.2 0.03 0.60 2.38 2.88 0.55 1.06 1.53 4,286 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
7 / 36
2026 0.78 6.31 10.1 0.01 0.29 0.28 0.56 0.26 0.06 0.31 1,630 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.45 15.2 13.2 0.03 0.59 2.13 2.72 0.54 0.99 1.53 3,993 2026 1.39 14.2 12.6 0.03 0.55 2.13 2.68 0.51 0.99 1.49 3,970 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.77 7.95 7.26 0.02 0.31 1.13 1.44 0.29 0.51 0.80 1,995 2026 0.40 3.59 4.38 0.01 0.16 0.26 0.42 0.14 0.10 0.24 953 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.14 1.45 1.32 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.26 0.05 0.09 0.15 330 2026 0.07 0.66 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.04 158

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Pavement Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.24 11.5 10.4 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 1,770
Demolition — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.03 0.03 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.24 11.5 10.4 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 1,770
Demolition — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.03 0.03 —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
8 / 36
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.69 0.63 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 107
Demolition — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 17.7 Demolition — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.31 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 268 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 99.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.33 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 267 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
9 / 36
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.67

3.3. Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing, and vegetation removal (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.39 13.0 12.7 0.02 0.59 — 0.59 0.55 — 0.55 2,199
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.84 1.84 — 0.89 0.89 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 1.78 1.74 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 301
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.25 0.25 — 0.12 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.33 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 49.9
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
10 / 36
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 55.3 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.57 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25

3.5. Recirculation stream and landscapeing (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 5.62 7.59 0.01 0.29 — 0.29 0.26 — 0.26 1,194
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.01 0.01 —
Architectural
Coatings

0.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
11 / 36
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.62 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 131
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Architectural
Coatings

0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 21.7
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Architectural
Coatings
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 137 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.2 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.54 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
12 / 36
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42

3.7. Underground infiltration tank excavation (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 11.0 10.9 0.02 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 1,920
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 1.97 1.95 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 342
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.16 0.16 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 56.6
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
13 / 36
Dust From — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 —
Material
Movement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 2.64 1.03 0.01 0.03 0.58 0.60 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,261 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.49 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 402 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.98 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 66.6

3.9. Sports field construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.57 5.20 7.27 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 1,137
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
14 / 36
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.71 1.00 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 156
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.13 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 25.8
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 103 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.18 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 162 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.1 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
15 / 36
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66

3.11. Underground infiltration tank construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.40 13.6 12.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.53 — 0.53 2,622
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.40 13.6 12.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.53 — 0.53 2,622
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.27 2.66 2.38 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 513
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.33 0.33 — 0.17 0.17 —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
16 / 36
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.49 0.43 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 85.0
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.49 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.10 1,273 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 99.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.55 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.10 1,271 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.31 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 249 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 41.2

3.13. Underground infiltration tank construction (2026) - Unmitigated Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
17 / 36
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 12.6 11.6 0.02 0.53 — 0.53 0.49 — 0.49 2,623
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.99 0.91 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 205
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.07 0.07 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.18 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 34.0
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
18 / 36
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 97.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.49 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.10 1,249 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.12 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 97.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.2

3.15. Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment equipment, and pump installation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.61 5.53 6.00 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 1,447
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.61 5.53 6.00 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 1,447
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
19 / 36
Dust From — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — Material
Movement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.76 0.82 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 198
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 32.8 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 103 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.6 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 97.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.6 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.6 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
20 / 36
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.54 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42

3.17. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.68 6.23 8.81 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 1,355
Paving 0.02 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.34 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 74.2
Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 12.3 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
21 / 36
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 275 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
22 / 36
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
23 / 36
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Pavement Demolition Demolition 3/14/2025 4/14/2025 5.00 22.0 — Site mobilization, clearing,
grubbing, and vegetation
removal
Site Preparation 4/15/2025 6/23/2025 5.00 50.0 —
Recirculation stream and
landscapeing
Site Preparation 6/30/2026 8/24/2026 5.00 40.0 —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
24 / 36
Underground infiltration
tank excavation
Grading 6/24/2025 9/22/2025 5.00 65.0 —
Sports field construction Grading 4/21/2026 6/29/2026 5.00 50.0 — Underground infiltration
tank construction
Grading 9/23/2025 2/9/2026 5.00 100 —
Pipeline, diversion
structure, treatment
equipment, and pump
installation
Grading 2/10/2026 4/20/2026 5.00 50.0 —
Paving Paving 8/25/2026 9/21/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Pavement Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Pavement Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Pavement Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site mobilization,
clearing, grubbing, and
vegetation removal
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Site mobilization,
clearing, grubbing, and
vegetation removal
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Site mobilization,
clearing, grubbing, and
vegetation removal
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Recirculation stream
and landscapeing
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Recirculation stream
and landscapeing
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
25 / 36
Recirculation stream Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 and landscapeing
Recirculation stream
and landscapeing
Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42
Underground infiltration
tank excavation
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Underground infiltration
tank excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground infiltration
tank excavation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Sports field construction Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Sports field construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Sports field construction Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42
Underground infiltration
tank construction
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Underground infiltration
tank construction
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Underground infiltration
tank construction
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Pipeline, diversion
structure, treatment
equipment, and pump
installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Pipeline, diversion
structure, treatment
equipment, and pump
installation
Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50
Pipeline, diversion
structure, treatment
equipment, and pump
installation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
26 / 36
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing,
and vegetation removal
— — — —
Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing,
and vegetation removal
Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing,
and vegetation removal
Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing,
and vegetation removal
Hauling 0.76 20.0 HHDT
Site mobilization, clearing, grubbing,
and vegetation removal
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground infiltration tank
construction
— — — —
Underground infiltration tank
construction
Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground infiltration tank
construction
Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Underground infiltration tank
construction
Hauling 17.5 20.0 HHDT
Underground infiltration tank
construction
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment
equipment, and pump installation
— — — —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
27 / 36
Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 equipment, and pump installation
Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment
equipment, and pump installation
Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment
equipment, and pump installation
Hauling 0.26 20.0 HHDT
Pipeline, diversion structure, treatment
equipment, and pump installation
Onsite truck—— HHDT
Sports field construction————
Sports field construction Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Sports field construction Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Sports field construction Hauling 2.26 20.0 HHDT
Sports field construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Recirculation stream and landscapeing————
Recirculation stream and landscapeing Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Recirculation stream and landscapeing Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Recirculation stream and landscapeing Hauling 0.33 20.0 HHDT Recirculation stream and landscapeing Onsite truck—— HHDT Underground infiltration tank excavation————
Underground infiltration tank excavation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Underground infiltration tank excavation Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Underground infiltration tank excavation Hauling 31.1 20.0 HHDT Underground infiltration tank excavation Onsite truck—— HHDT Paving————
Paving Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Pavement Demolition————
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
28 / 36
Pavement Demolition Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pavement Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Pavement Demolition Hauling 3.68 20.0 HHDT
Pavement Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Recirculation stream and
landscapeing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 420

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Pavement Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 324 —
Site mobilization, clearing,
grubbing, and vegetation
removal
— 300 100 0.00 —
Recirculation stream and
landscapeing
— 100 20.0 0.00 —
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
29 / 36
Underground infiltration tank — 16,160 32.5 0.00 —
excavation
Sports field construction — 900 25.0 0.00 —
Underground infiltration tank
construction
— 14,000 50.0 0.00 —
Pipeline, diversion structure,
treatment equipment, and pump
installation
— 100 0.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.16 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
30 / 36

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 23.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 8.80 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 26.6 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
31 / 36
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
32 / 36
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
AQ-PM 79.4
AQ-DPM 21.7
Drinking Water 51.3
Lead Risk Housing 57.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 64.7
Traffic 9.38
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.2
Groundwater 10.6
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
33 / 36
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 30.2
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 42.1
Cardio-vascular 63.7
Low Birth Weights 24.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 25.5
Housing 35.8
Linguistic 55.6
Poverty 41.2
Unemployment 71.7

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 57.21801617
Employed 46.28512768
Median HI 45.97715899
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 66.94469396
High school enrollment 8.712947517
Preschool enrollment 77.03066855
Transportation —
Auto Access 36.95624278
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
34 / 36
Active commuting 17.27191069
Social —
2-parent households 50.49403311
Voting 47.09354549
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 53.77903247
Park access 55.54985243
Retail density 43.93686642
Supermarket access 44.39881945
Tree canopy 33.28628256
Housing —
Homeownership 24.38085461
Housing habitability 60.09239061
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 54.71577056 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 85.85910432
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 46.18247145
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 67.6
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 58.4
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
35 / 36
Cognitively Disabled 60.3
Physically Disabled 52.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 57.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 1.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 87.0
Elderly 42.0
English Speaking 55.8
Foreign-born 31.9
Outdoor Workers 55.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 74.0
Traffic Density 13.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 38.7
Finkbiner Detailed Report, 11/8/2023
36 / 36
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 60.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 45.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Based on data request Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on data request
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Based on data request

APPENDIX B

JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT

Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
Glendora, California
Prepared for Craftwater Engineering, Inc.
10711 Oakbend Drive
San Diego, California 92131
Contact: Courtney Semlow, P.E.

Prepared by Psomas
225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: David T. Hughes, Senior Project Manager
T: (626) 204-6530
April 6, 2023
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Description..................................................................................... 1

1.4 Regulatory Authority .................................................................................. 1

1.4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................... 1

1.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ........................................... 2

1.4.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................... 3

2.0 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Literature Review ....................................................................................... 4

2.2 Field Survey ............................................................................................... 4

2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ........................................................................... 4

2.3.1 Non-Wetlands ................................................................................ 4

2.3.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................ 4

3.0 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 6

3.1 USGS Topographic Quadrangle ................................................................ 6

3.2 Soil Survey................................................................................................. 6

3.3 National Wetlands Inventory ...................................................................... 6

3.4 Regional Water Quality Control Plan ......................................................... 7

4.0 Jurisdictional Analysis ................................................................................................... 9

4.1 “Waters of the United States” Determination ............................................. 9

4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction .................................. 10

4.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction ........................... 10

5.0 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 11

6.0 Regulatory Approval Process ...................................................................................... 12

6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................. 12

6.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ..................................................... 12

6.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife .............................................. 12

6.4 Recommendations ................................................................................... 13

7.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 14 Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx ii Table of Contents TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................. 7 2 Summary of Jurisdictional Resources on the Project site ................................................. 9 3 Impacts on Jurisdictional Resources in the Survey Area ................................................ 11

EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................. 1 2 U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Quadrangle ............................................................... 1 3 Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 1 4 Soil Map ............................................................................................................................ 6 5 National Wetland Inventory ............................................................................................... 7 6 Jurisdictional Resources ................................................................................................. 10 7 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... 11

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
A Summary of Regulatory Authority
B Site Photographs
C Literature Review Details
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx ES-1 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Jurisdictional Delineation Report is to provide baseline data concerning the type and extent of jurisdictional resources that occur at the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Site in the city of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California. Jurisdictional resources considered for this report include wetlands and non-wetland “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); “waters of the State” regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); and the bed, bank, and channel of all lakes, rivers, and/or streams (and associated riparian vegetation), as regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

The jurisdictional delineation work was performed by Psomas Regulatory Specialist David Hughes on March 2, 2023. Based on the results of the jurisdictional delineation field work, it was determined that the total amount of jurisdictional resources on the Project site are as follows:
 USACE Jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”:

Wetlands: 0.00 acre
Non-wetland waters: 0.433 acre
 RWQCB Jurisdictional “waters of the State”:

Wetlands: 0.00 acre
Non-wetland waters: 0.433 acre
 CDFW Jurisdictional Streambeds:

Streambeds/Riparian Habitat: 0.433 acre
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 1 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Jurisdictional Delineation Report has been prepared to provide baseline data concerning the type and extent of resources under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project site located in the city of Glendora, California (hereinafter referred to as the “Project site”).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located at Finkbiner Park, a public park located east of the North Wabash Avenue, west of North Cullen Avenue, and north of East Dalton Avenue in the northern portion of the city of Glendora (Exhibit 1). The Project site is shown on the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’) Glendora 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle of the San Bernardino Meridian in Township 1 North, Range 9 West, Section 30 (Exhibit 2).

1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project site is a public park with several sports fields and is dominated by turf grass and several landscape trees. Little Dalton Wash, a concrete-lined storm drain channel runs along the southern edge of Finkbiner Park (Exhibit 3).

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project consists of the construction of a subterranean water storage facility that would accept flows from the adjacent Little Dalton Wash. The water storage facility would cover approximately 1.9 acres and measure 10 feet deep. A rubber dam structure will be constructed in Little Dalton Wash that will direct water to a drop inlet built on the bottom of the channel. Further downstream, a pipe will be constructed on the side wall of the channel to allow for the discharge of overflow water back into Little Dalton Wash.

1.4 REGULATORY AUTHORITY
This section summarizes the federal and State agencies’ regulatory jurisdiction over activities that have a potential to impact jurisdictional resources. A detailed explanation of each agency’s regulatory authority is provided in Attachment A.

1.4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE Regulatory Branch regulates activities that discharge dredged or fill materials into “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Its authority applies to all WOTUS where the material (1) replaces any portion of a WOTUS with dry land or (2) changes the bottom elevation of any portion of any WOTUS. Activities that result in fill or dredge of WOTUS require a permit from the USACE.

Recently, the definition of WOTUS has been the subject of shifting regulations. Recent federal revisions to regulations address the extent of USACE jurisdiction and the definition of WOTUS have been issued by the Obama Administration in 2015 and the Trump Administration in 2020.

On January 18, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a G l e n d o r a
A z u s a
A z u s a
S a n D i m a s
C i t r u s
W Foothill Blvd E Foothill Blvd
S
G el ndora Ave
W Baseline Rd
S Loraine Ave
W E Sierra Madre Ave Sierra Madre Ave
W Bennett Ave
N Valley Center Ave
N Live Oak Ave
N Barranca Ave
N Loraine Ave
W Gladstone St
E Palm Dr
Bonnie Cove Ave
W Sierra Madre Ave
Foothill
Presbyterian
Hospital
Huntington
East Valley
Hospital
Angeles
National
Forest
Angeles
National
Forest
Angeles
National Forest
Azusa
Pacific
University
Citrus
College
Foothill
Christian
School
Hope Lutheran
Elem School
La Fetra
Elementary
School
Saint Dorothy
Elem School
Cullen Elementary
School
Glendora
High
School
Whitcomb
High School
Williams
Elementary
School
Stanton
Elementary
School
Sellers
Elementary
School
Goddard
Middle
School
Sandburg
Middle
School
Saint Lucys
Priory High
School
Drendell
School
Arrow High
School
Washington
Elementary
School
Willow
Elementary
School
Light and Life
Elementary
School
Louie
Pompei
Sports Park
South
Hills Park
George
Manooshian
Park
Finkbiner
Park
Dawson
Park
Gladstone
Park
Sandburg
School
Park Ole
Hammer
Park
Willow
Springs
Park
Glen Oaks
Golf Course
Oakdale
Memorial Park D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_LV_20230313.mxd ²
San Gabriel
Reservoir
Project Location Glendora
San Dimas
§¨105
§¨710
§¨110
§¨605
§¨210
ST19
ST90
ST142
ST72
ST110
ST60
ST57
ST710
ST241
ST91
Los Angeles
Orange
Anaheim
Pasadena
West Covina
Buena Park
Yorba Linda
Lakewood
Downey
Whittier
Local Vicinity
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Exhibit 1
(Rev: 04/03/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_LV.pdf 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Survey Area
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project GLENDORA QUADRANGLE AZUSA QUADRANGLE

GLENDORA QUADRANGLE

SAN DIMAS QUADRANGLE

AZUSA QUADRANGLE

BALDWIN PARK QUADRANGLE

SAN DIMAS QUADRANGLE

BALDWIN PARK QUADRANGLE
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_USGS_20230313.mxd
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 ² Feet
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Glendora
Township: 01N
Range: 10W
Section: 30
Survey Area
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
(Rev: 4-03-2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_USGS.pdf Exhibit 2
Project Site Exhibit 3
(Rev: 04/03/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_Project_Site.pdf E Foothill Blvd
N Wabash Ave
N Minnesota Ave
E Mountain View Ave
S Wabash Ave
S M ni nesota Ave
E Dalton Ave
E Meda Ave
Lesterwest Way
N Cullen Ave S Cullen Ave
N Pasadena Ave
E Bennett Ave
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_Project_Site_20230313.mxd 200 100 0 200 ² Feet
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2021
Survey Area
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 2 Jurisdictional Delineation Report final Water Rule in the Federal Register that took effect on March 20, 2023. This new Water Rule defines WOTUS as:

1. Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, and interstate waters (“paragraph (a)(1) waters”);

2. Impoundments of “waters of the United States” (“paragraph (a)(2) impoundments”);

3. Tributaries to TNWs, the territorial seas, interstate waters, or paragraph (a)(2) impoundments when the tributaries meet either the relatively permanent standard or the significant nexus standard (i.e., “jurisdictional tributaries”);

4. Wetlands adjacent to paragraph (a)(1) waters, wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent paragraph (a)(2) impoundments, wetlands adjacent to tributaries that meet the relatively permanent standard, and wetlands adjacent to paragraph (a)(2) impoundments or jurisdictional tributaries when the wetlands meet the significant nexus standard (“jurisdictional adjacent wetlands”); and

5. Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) that meet either the relatively permanent standard or the significant nexus standard (“paragraph (a)(5) waters”).

1.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in conjunction with the nine RWQCBs, is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California through the regulation of discharges to surface waters under the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). The SWRCB’s and RWQCBs’ jurisdictions extend to all “waters of the State” and to all WOTUS, including wetlands (isolated and non-isolated).

The Porter-Cologne Act broadly defines “waters of the State” as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State.” On August 28, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to “waters of the State”, which went into effect on May 28, 2020. Under these new regulations, the SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs will assert jurisdiction over all existing WOTUS, and all waters that have been considered WOTUS under any historical definition.

Impacts to WOTUS are authorized by the RWQCBs through a Water Quality Certification per Section 401 of the CWA. Impacts to “waters of the State” that are not considered WOTUS would be authorized by Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the RWQCB, pursuant to California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

On April 6, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the October 2021 order by the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of California that vacated EPA’s 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule (2020). The stay of the vacatur applies nationwide. Therefore, the CWA section 401 certification process is once again governed by the CWA section 401 certification regulations promulgated by USEPA in 2020, codified at 40 CFR 121. This 2020 rule requires all project proponents to request a pre-filing meeting with the RWQCB at least 30 days prior to filing a 401 “Certification Request”. The filing procedure has been simplified to require the filing of a “Certification Request”, rather than the acceptance of a “complete application”.

There is a mandatory 30-day wait period between a pre-filing meeting request and the filing of a Certification Request. A Certification Request must be filed with the RWQCB and the USACE concurrently. USACE reviews the Certification Request for the nine required components. The USACE has 15 days to review the Certification Request. The USACE then notifies the RWQCB Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 3 Jurisdictional Delineation Report that request is complete. And concurrently notifies the RWQCB of the reasonable time period to act on the Certification Request. The reasonable time period is not to exceed 1 year. Within 15 days of receipt of the Certification Request the RWQCB must provide the applicant with the following: 1) date of receipt; 2) applicable reasonable period of time to act on the Certification Request; and 3) date upon which waiver will occur if the certifying authority fails or refuses to act on the Certification Request. It should be noted that the RWQCB may require that the findings of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report be certified by the USACE prior to issuing a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

Once the RWQCB issues the 401 Certification, the USACE has 5 days to notify the USEPA that the 401 Certification has been issued. The USEPA then has 30 days to notify neighboring jurisdictions of the 401 Certification. Neighboring jurisdictions have 60 days to respond. If there are no objections to the 401 Certification, then the USACE issues the 404 permit. It should be noted that the RWQCB may require that the findings of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report be certified by the USACE prior to issuing a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

1.4.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW regulates activities that may affect rivers, streams, and lakes pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code (§§1600–1616). According to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW has jurisdictional authority over any work that will (1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 4 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

2.0 METHODS

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to conducting the delineation and during the course of report preparation, Psomas reviewed the following documents to identify areas that may fall under agency jurisdiction: the USGS’ Glendora 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map; color aerial photography provided by Google Earth; soil data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS 2023a); the National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2023b); the National Wetlands Inventory’s Wetland Mapper (USFWS 2023); and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles RWQCB 1994).

2.2 FIELD SURVEY
The analysis contained in this report uses the results of a field survey conducted by Psomas Regulatory Specialist David Hughes on March 2, 2023. Jurisdictional features were delineated using a 1 inch equals 100 feet (1″ = 100′) scale aerial photograph. Jurisdictional drainage features were mapped as a line and the width of the agency jurisdiction was noted; other waterbodies (basins) were mapped as polygons.

2.3 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION

2.3.1 Non-Wetlands
Non-wetland WOTUS are delineated based on the limits of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which can be determined by a number of factors, including the presence of a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; and the presence of litter and debris. The OHWM limits (i.e., active floodplain) occurring on the Project site as based on methods contained in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, A Delineation Manual (Lichvar and McColley 2008) and the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Curtis and Lichvar 2010).

It should be noted that the RWQCB shares USACE jurisdiction unless isolated conditions are present. If isolated waters are present, the RWQCB takes jurisdiction using the USACE’s definition of the OHWM and/or the three-parameter wetlands method pursuant to the 1987 Wetlands Manual. The CDFW’s jurisdiction is defined as the top of the bank on either side of a stream, channel, or basin or to the outer limit of riparian vegetation located within or immediately adjacent to the river, stream, creek, pond, lake, or other impoundment.

2.3.2 Wetlands
Technical methods and guidelines to determine the presence and extent of wetlands is described by the USACE in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008). The presence of wetlands is determined by a three-parameter approach requiring evidence of (1) wetland hydrology, (2) hydrophytic vegetation, and (3) hydric soils.

Wetland hydrology is determined by the presence of indicators such as observed surface water; presence of past surface flow; and the depth to saturated soils or free water in soil test pits.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 5 Jurisdictional Delineation Report Procedures for determining whether the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met is based three potential indicators as described in Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008). These include the “Dominance Test”, using the “50/20 Rule”; the “Prevalence Index”; or the presence of “Morphological Adaptation” of vegetation that is present. These indicators are based on determining the presence and relative abundance of plant species that are categorized as Obligate Wetland (typically associated with wetland conditions); Facultative Wetland (predominantly present in wetland conditions); Facultative (equally likely to occur in wetland or non-wetland areas); Facultative Upland (predominantly found in non-wetland areas); or Upland (typically found in mesic to xeric nonwetland habitats). Plant species are categorized in the National Wetland Plant List, created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Soils are determined to be hydric when they form under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding that occurs long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions (or conditions of limited oxygen) at or near the soil surface and that favor the establishment of hydrophytic vegetation (USDA NRCS 2023c). The presence of hydric soil conditions is determined where various indicators are observed by digging soil test pits to a depth of approximately 20 inches. Common hydric soil indicators include presence of redoximorphic features (i.e., areas where iron is reduced under anaerobic conditions and oxidized following a return to aerobic conditions); buried organic matter; organic streaking; reduced soil conditions; or sulfuric odor.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 6 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
This section provides a summary of literature review results that were reviewed prior to the field survey and during report preparation that have helped inform the analysis provided in this report.

3.1 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
The USGS topographic quadrangle maps show geological formations and their characteristics; they describe the physical settings of an area through topographic contour lines and other major surface features. These features include lakes, streams, rivers, buildings, roadways, landmarks, and other features that may fall under the jurisdiction of one or more regulatory agencies. In addition, the USGS maps provide topographic information that is useful in determining elevations, latitude and longitude, and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid coordinates.

The Project site occurs on the USGS’ Glendora 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. The only drainage feature that appears on the quadrangle in the vicinity of the Project site is Little Dalton Wash which appears as a blueline stream. Elevation on the Project site ranges from approximately 790 to 820 feet above mean sea level.

3.2 SOIL SURVEY
The Project site is located in the Southeastern Los Angeles County Soil Survey Area and contains a single soil type: Urban land-Palmview-Tujunga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes (Exhibit 4). This is a well-drained to excessively-drained soil, typically associated with alluvial fans that is composed of sandy loam material. It is a deep soil, where the water table is typically more than 80 inches below grade and is not expected to support ponding. This soil is not listed as a potentially hydric soil by the National Hydric Soil List (USDA NRCS 2023c), so that wetland conditions are not expected to occur. A summary of the characteristics of this soil type is provided in Attachment B of this report.

3.3 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetland Mapper (USFWS 2023) shows wetland resources available from the Wetlands Spatial Data Layer of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. This resource provides the classification of known wetlands following the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FGDC 2013). This classification system is arranged in a hierarchy of (1) Systems that share the influence of similar hydrologic, geomorphologic, chemical, or biological factors (i.e., Marine Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine); (2) Subsystems (i.e., Subtidal and Intertidal; Tidal, Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial, and Intermittent; or Littoral and Limnetic); (3) Classes, which are based on substrate material and flooding regime or on vegetative life forms; (4) Subclasses; and (5) Dominance Types, which are named for the dominant plant or wildlife forms. In addition, there are modifying terms applied to Classes or Subclasses.

Little Dalton Wash appears on the National Wetland Inventory and is listed as R4SBCx (Riverine, Intermittent Streambed, Intermittently Flooded) (Exhibit 5). The description for this code is as follows:
 R: System RIVERINE. The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts of 0.5 parts per trillion (ppt) or greater. A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water.

Soil Map Exhibit 4
(Rev: 04/03/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_Soils.pdf E Foothill Blvd
N Wabash Ave
N Minnesota Ave
E Mountain View Ave
S Wabash Ave
S M ni nesota Ave
E Dalton Ave
E Meda Ave
Lesterwest Way
N Cullen Ave S Cullen Ave
N Pasadena Ave
E Bennett Ave
1002
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_Soils_20230313.mxd
200 100 0 200 ² Feet
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2021
Survey Area
Soil Types
1002 - Urban land-Palmview-Tujunga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 7 Jurisdictional Delineation Report o 4: Subsystem INTERMITTENT. This Subsystem includes channels that contain flowing water only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent.
 SB: Class STREAMBED. Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide. o C: Water Regime SEASONALLY FLOODED. Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table well below the ground surface.
 x: Special Modifier EXCAVATED: This Modifier is used to identify wetland basins or channels that were excavated by humans.

3.4 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
There are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California. The Project site is located within Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 4, the Los Angeles Region. The SWRCB and the Los Angeles RWQCB have adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (or “Basin Plan”) for the region. The Basin Plan contains goals and policies, descriptions of conditions, and proposed solutions to surface and groundwater issues. The Basin Plan also establishes water quality standards for surface and groundwater resources and includes beneficial uses and levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect these uses. These water quality standards are implemented through various regulatory permits pursuant to CWA Section 401 for Water Quality Certifications and Section 402 for Report of Waste Discharge permits.

Little Dalton Wash occurs within the Walnut Creek Wash Hydrologic Area (Watershed Boundary Dataset 180701060402) within the San Gabriel River watershed. Beneficial Uses associated with Little Dalton Wash include: Municipal Water Supply (MUN); Ground Water Recharge (GWR); Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM); Wildlife Habitat (WILD); Limited Water Contact Recreation (REC1); and Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2) (Los Angeles RWQCB 1994) (Table 1).

Descriptions of the various Beneficial Uses are provided in Attachment B.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL USES
Feature
Beneficial Uses
MUN GWR WARM WILD REC1 REC2
Little Dalton Wash
WBD 180701060402 P I P P P I
WBD: Watershed Boundary Dataset; MUN: Municipal Water Supply; GWR: Ground Water Recharge; WARM: Warm Freshwater Habitat; WILD: Wildlife Habitat; REC1: Limited Water Contact Recreation; REC2: Non-Contact Water Recreation
I: Intermittent Beneficial Use; P: Potential Beneficial Use Source: Los Angeles RWQCB 1994.

The Project will permanently affect the MUN Beneficial Use since the objective of the Project is to divert water from Little Dalton Wash to an underground water storage facility to enhance the local municipal water supply. Because the Project diverts water from Little Dalton Wash, it will reduce downstream flows that have the potential to eventually infiltrate into the soil. This would National Wetland Inventory Exhibit 5
(Rev: 04/03/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_NWI.pdf E Foothill Blvd
N Wabash Ave
N Minnesota Ave
E Mountain View Ave
S Wabash Ave
S M ni nesota Ave
E Dalton Ave
E Meda Ave
Lesterwest Way
N Cullen Ave S Cullen Ave
N Pasadena Ave
E Bennett Ave
R4SBCx
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_NWI_20230313.mxd
200 100 0 200 ² Feet
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2021
Survey Area
Wetland Type
Riverine
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 8 Jurisdictional Delineation Report have a minor overall effect on the GWR Beneficial Use. The channel is lined with concrete and does not support any aquatic habitat so that the WARM and WILD Beneficial Uses would not be affected. The channel is fenced and inaccessible to the public, indicating that the REC1 Beneficial Use doesn’t apply to this portion of Little Dalton Wash and will therefore not be affected. Any modifications to the channel to divert water will not permanently affect the minimal REC2 Beneficial Uses that the channel provides.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 9 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS
Little Dalton Wash is the only drainage feature that occurs in the survey area. This was a natural drainage feature that was converted to a concrete-lined storm drain approximately 70 years ago to protect surrounding residential areas from flood damage. Because the channel is lined with concrete, it supports no aquatic or riparian vegetation. The channel bottom is flat and the sides are vertical so that the jurisdictional limits of the three regulatory agencies are the same.

A summary of the channel’s characteristics is provided in Table 2 and photographs are provided in Attachment C that illustrate the conditions on the Project site.

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES ON THE PROJECT SITE Feature
Latitude/Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Feature
Length
(linear
feet)
OHWM
Width
Range
(feet)
Area of

USACE/RWQCB
Jurisdiction*
(acres)
CDFW
Jurisdiction
Width Range
(feet)
Area of
CDFW
Jurisdiction
(acres)
Upstream
End
Downstream
End Wetland
Nonwetland
Little Dalton Wash
WBD 180701060402

34.137972°,
-117.859391°

34.136661°,
-117.862738° 1,110 17 0.00 0.433 17 0.433
Total 0.00 0.433 0.433
*Because there are no isolated waters on the Project site, the RWQCB jurisdiction is the same as the USACE’s OHWM: Ordinary High Water Mark; USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

4.1 “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” DETERMINATION
As discussed in Section 1.4, the federal government recently put forth a final Water Rule that contains an updated definition of WOTUS. This WOTUS definition covers features that have been consistently regulated by the Clean Water Act such as TNWs, the territorial seas, interstate waters, and any impoundments of these waters. Pertinent to this analysis, WOTUS also consist of “jurisdictional tributaries”, which are drainage features that meet either the relatively permanent standard or the significant nexus standard.

Relatively Permanent Standard
The relatively permanent standard identifies drainage features that convey surface water flows for a period that is at least seasonal (i.e., surface water must be continuously present for a minimum period of 3 months). Though the hydrology of Little Dalton Wash is highly modified, with a series of basins upstream of Finkbiner Park, surface flows were present during the field survey and flows appear be sustained on a seasonal basis at least. The National Hydrography Dataset indicates that the channel sustains surface flows in excess of 10 cubic feet per second from February through April on average. Aerial photographs of the site appear to consistently show the presence of surface water at various points of the year. Based on these data, flowing water appears to be present on a relatively permanent basis to meet this standard.

Significant Nexus Standard
Water that is conveyed through Little Dalton Wash at the Project site proceeds 5 miles before reaching the confluence with San Dimas Wash. Water subsequently flows 3.5 miles to Walnut Creek, 2 miles to the San Gabriel River, and then approximately 24 miles to the lower San Gabriel Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 10 Jurisdictional Delineation Report River and Pacific Ocean, which are Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs). Because water that passes through the Project site has a direct connection to a TNW, Little Dalton Wash meets the Significant Nexus Standard.

Limits of “Waters of the U.S.”
Because Little Dalton Wash meets the Relatively Permanent and Significant Nexus standards, it is considered to be WOTUS and under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The limits of WOTUS are considered to comprise the entire width of the flat bottom channel. Therefore, approximately 0.433 acre of non-wetland WOTUS under the regulatory authority of the USACE occurs on the Project site (Table 2; Exhibit 6).

Wetlands Determination
As indicated above, Little Dalton Wash is hardened throughout the Project site and, as a result, no soil test pits could be excavated to check for hydric soil indicators. Furthermore, the channel is unvegetated and no hydrophytic plant species are present. Therefore, it is assumed that no wetland conditions are present.

4.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD JURISDICTION
No isolated drainage features occur on the Project site, therefore, the jurisdictional limits of the RWQCB are equal to that of the USACE. Based on these findings, the Project site contains a total of 0.433 acre of non-wetland “waters of the State” (Table 2; Exhibit 6).

4.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE JURISDICTION The limits of CDFW jurisdiction on the Project site were mapped to the top of the bank of Little Dalton Wash. Because the channel side walls are vertical, the width of the top of the bank equals the width of the channel bottom. Therefore, the amount of CDFW jurisdictional waters is equal to that of the USACE and RWQCB, measuring approximately 0.433 acre (Table 2; Exhibit 6).

Jurisdictional Resources Exhibit 6
(Rev: 04/03/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_JD.pdf E Foothill Blvd
N Wabash Ave
N Minnesota Ave
E Mountain View Ave
S Wabash Ave
S Minnesota Ave
E Dalton Ave
E Meda Ave
Lesterwest Way
N Cullen Ave S Cullen Ave
N Pasadena Ave
E Bennett Ave
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_JD_20230313.mxd
200 100 0 200 ² Feet
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2021
Jurisdictional Resources
CDFW jurisdictional waters
USACE "waters of the U.S."
underground culvert
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 11 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Proposed project activities involve the installation of a rubber dam and drop inlet which will be permanent changes to Little Dalton Wash. Temporary impacts involve all other areas within the Project construction boundaries that overlap with the limits of jurisdictional waters. Temporary impacts consist of areas where construction equipment may operate or where temporary fills will be placed to divert flowing water around work areas. The total area of Little Dalton Wash within the Project construction boundary is 0.035 acre which consists of 0.005 acre of permanent impacts and 0.030 of temporary impacts (Table 3; Exhibit 7). The jurisdictional impacts for all three regulatory agencies are equal because Little Dalton Wash consists of a concrete channel with vertical sidewalls.

TABLE 3

IMPACTS ON JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES IN THE SURVEY AREA
Existing in
Survey Area
(acres)
Impacts (acres)
Jurisdictional Feature Permanent Temporary
USACE “waters of the U.S.” 0.433 0.005 0.030
RWQCB “waters of the State” 0.433 0.005 0.030
CDFW Jurisdictional Waters 0.433 0.005 0.030
USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Project Impacts Exhibit 7
(Rev: 04/04/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_JD.pdf E Foothill Blvd
N Wabash Ave
N Minnesota Ave
E Mountain View Ave
S Wabash Ave
S Minnesota Ave
E Dalton Ave
E Meda Ave
Lesterwest Way
N Cullen Ave S Cullen Ave
N Pasadena Ave
E Bennett Ave
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_Impacts_20230323.mxd
200 100 0 200 ² Feet
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2021
Project Construction Limits
Jurisdictional Resources
CDFW jurisdictional waters
USACE "waters of the U.S."
underground culvert
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 12 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

6.0 REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS
This section summarizes the various permits, agreements, and certifications that may be required prior to initiation of the proposed Project activities that involve impacts to jurisdictional waters, including:
 USACE Section 404 Permit
 RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification
 CDFW Section 1602 Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration It should be noted that all regulatory permit applications can be processed concurrently.

6.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Prior to construction in WOTUS, a Section 404 permit from the USACE is required. Due to the limited impacts, the proposed Project can be authorized under NWP 18 (Minor Discharges), which authorizes impacts that involve less than 25 cubic yards of material discharged within 0.1 acre of WOTUS.

Issuance of the USACE Section 404 permit would be contingent upon the approval of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles RWQCB. The RWQCB requires certification of the proposed project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation before it will approve the Section 401 Water Quality Certification or ROWD. The RWQCB, as a responsible agency, will use the proposed project’s CEQA document to satisfy its own CEQA-compliance requirements.

6.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
As noted above, issuance of the USACE Section 404 permit would be contingent upon the approval of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles RWQCB. The RWQCB requires the Applicant to address urban storm water runoff during and after construction in the form of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are intended to address the treatment of pollutants carried by storm water runoff and are required in all complete applications. The notification/application for a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification must also address compliance with the Basin Plan. Please note that the application would also require the payment of an application fee, which would be based on project impacts.

6.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Prior to construction, Notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) must be submitted to the CDFW that describes any proposed streambed alteration contemplated by the proposed project. If an LSA Agreement is required, the CDFW may want to conduct an on-site inspection.

In addition to the formal application materials and the fee, a copy of the appropriate environmental document (e.g., Mitigated Negative Declaration) should be included in the submittal, consistent with CEQA requirements. The CDFW will not deem the application to be complete until the application fees have been paid and the agency is provided with a certified CEQA document and a signed copy of the receipt of County Clerk filing fees for the Notice of Determination (NOD).

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 13 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions of this Jurisdictional Delineation Report, the following recommendations are identified:

1. A pre-application meeting should be scheduled with USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB staff to discuss site conditions; the proposed project; biological and jurisdictional resources and impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project; proposed minimization measures and the mitigation program to offset these impacts; and the regulatory permit process.

2. The following should be prepared and processed: a USACE Section 404 Permit; an RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification; a CDFW Section 1602 Notification of LSA; and the appropriate jurisdictional determination form approved by the USACE.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx 14 Jurisdictional Delineation Report

7.0 REFERENCES
Curtis, K. E., and R. L. Lichvar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (ERDC/CRREL TN-10-1). Hanover, NH: USACE Research and Development Center, Cold Regions and Research Engineering Laboratory.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FGDC-STD-004-2013, 2nd Ed.). Washington, D.C.: FGDC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles RWQCB). 1994 (June). Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Los Angeles, CA:

Los Angeles RWQCB. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/basin_ plan/basin_plan_ documentation.shtml.

Munsell Color. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, NY: Kollmorgen Instruments Corp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2008 (September). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). (J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, Eds.). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA489704&Location= U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2023a (accessed February 27). Web Soil Survey. Washington D.C.: USDA, Soil Survey Geographic Database. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. ———. 2023b Hydric Soils: National List (Excel document). Washington, D.C.: USDA NRCS. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. ———. 2023c (accessed Feb 27). Hydric Soils – Introduction. Washington, D.C.: USDA NRCS. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023 (accessed February 27). Wetland Mapper.

Washington D.C.: USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.

ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-1 Summary of Regulatory Authority

REGULATORY AUTHORITY
This attachment summarizes the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) over activities that have potential to impact jurisdictional resources.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE Regulatory Branch regulates activities that discharge dredged or fill materials into “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. This permitting authority applies to all WOTUS where the material (1) replaces any portion of WOTUS with dry land or (2) changes the bottom elevation of any portion of any WOTUS. These fill materials would include sand, rock, clay, construction debris, wood chips, and materials used to create any structure or infrastructure in these waters.

Waters of the United States
On January 18, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE published in the Federal Register a new Water Rule which provides an updated definition of WOTUS. This Water Rule became effective on March 20, 2023.

This new Water Rule replaces regulations put forth in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) by the Trump Administration in June 2020 which had revised the definition of WOTUS.

On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the NWPR pursuant to the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021), which led the USACE to utilize the definition of WOTUS that was in use prior to the 2015 Water Rule issued by the Obama Administration. The new Water Rule seeks to use the pre-2015 regulations as the basis for the definition of WOTUS, while incorporating the Supreme Court’s ruling from the case of Rapanos v. United States (“Rapanos”, 2006)1.

In this Supreme Court’s Rapanos ruling, Justice Kennedy authored a separate concurring opinion concluding that wetlands are WOTUS if they, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as “navigable”. The definition of WOTUS under the new 2023 Water Rule uses Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard as a basis for determining if a wetland is considered “adjacent” and therefore under the jurisdiction of the USACE.

The recently issued 2023 Water Rule defines WOTUS per the following categories:

1. Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, and interstate waters (“paragraph (a)(1) waters”);

2. Impoundments of “waters of the United States” (“paragraph (a)(2) impoundments”);

4. Wetlands adjacent to paragraph (a)(1) waters, wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent paragraph (a)(2) impoundments, wetlands adjacent to tributaries that meet the relatively permanent standard, and wetlands adjacent 1 Consolidated cases: Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States refer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision concerning USACE jurisdiction over “waters of the U.S.” under the CWA.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-2 Summary of Regulatory Authority to paragraph (a)(2) impoundments or jurisdictional tributaries when the wetlands meet the significant nexus standard (“jurisdictional adjacent wetlands”); and

The relatively permanent standard relates to waterways that contain surface water on a seasonal basis, meaning that surface water must be present for a period of at least 3 months. Wetland and non-wetland waters are considered to have a significant nexus to other jurisdictional waters if it is determined that they have the ability to affect their physical, chemical, or biological integrity.

The regulatory text for this rule specifically identifies several features that are non-jurisdictional by definition. These include:
 waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
 prior converted cropland;
 ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;  artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased;  artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
 artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons;  waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of WOTUS; and
 swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

Ordinary High Water Mark
The landward limit of tidal “waters of the U.S.” is the high-tide line. In non-tidal waters where adjacent wetlands are absent, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).2 The OHWM is defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas”.3 When wetlands are present, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands.4 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005 (December 7). Regulatory Guidance Letter. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. Washington, D.C.: USACE. 3 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 33, §328.3(e) 4 USACE 2005 Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-3 Summary of Regulatory Authority Wetlands
A wetland is a subset of jurisdictional waters and is defined by the USACE and the USEPA as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions”.5 Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and areas containing similar features.

The definition and methods for identifying wetland resources can be found in the USACE’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, 6 a supplement to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 7 Both the 1987
Wetlands Manual and the 2008 Arid West Supplement to the manual provide technical methods and guidelines for determining the presence of wetland “waters of the U.S.”. Pursuant to these manuals, a three-parameter approach is used to identify wetlands and requires evidence of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. In order to be considered a wetland, an area must exhibit one or more indicators of all three of these parameters. However, problem areas may periodically or permanently lack certain indicators for reasons such as seasonal or annual variability of rainfall, vegetation, and other factors. Atypical wetlands lack certain indicators due to recent human activities or natural events. Guidance for determining the presence of wetlands in these situations is presented in the regional supplement.

Section 404 Permit
Except as specified in Section 323.4 of the CFR, impacts to “waters of the U.S.” require a Section 404 Permit. Permit authorization may be in the form of (1) a “general permit” authorizing a category of activities in a specific geographical region or nationwide or (2) an “individual permit” (IP) following a review of an individual application form (to be obtained from the district office having jurisdiction over the waters in which the activity is proposed to be located).

Regulatory authorization in the form of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) is provided for certain categories of activities such as repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of a structure or fill which was previously authorized; utility line placement; or bank stabilization. NWPs authorize only those activities with minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment and are valid only if the conditions applicable to the permits are met or waivers to these conditions are provided in writing from the USACE. Please note that waivers may require consultation with affected federal and State agencies, which can be a lengthy process with no mandated processing time frames.

Certain activities do not require submission of an application form but may require a separate notification. If the NWP conditions cannot be met, an IP will be required. “Waters of the U.S.” temporarily filled, flooded, excavated, or drained but restored to pre-construction contours and elevations after construction are not included in the measurement of loss of “waters of the U.S.”.

The appropriate permit authorization will be based on the amount of impacts to “waters of the U.S.”, as determined by the USACE. There is no filing fee for the Section 404 Permit.

Approximately three or four months are typically required to process a routine permit application; large or complex activities may take longer to process. When a permit application is received, it will be assigned an identification number and reviewed for completeness by the District Engineer.

If an application is incomplete, additional information will be requested within 15 days of receipt of the application. If an application is complete, the District Engineer will issue a public notice 5 33 CFR §328.3(b)
6 USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). (J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, Eds.). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 7 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1).

Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-4 Summary of Regulatory Authority within 15 days unless specifically exempted by provisions of the CFR. Public comments will be accepted no more than 30 days but not less than 15 days from the date of public notice; these will become part of the administrative record of the application. Generally, the District Engineer will decide on the application no later than 60 days after receipt of the completed application.

Additional permit situations may increase the permit processing time (e.g., projects involving a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, a coastal zone management consistency analysis, historic properties, a federal agency, and/or Endangered species). The Project Applicant will be given time, not to exceed 30 days, to respond to requests of the District Engineer.

On January 31, 2007, the USACE published a memorandum clarifying the Interim Guidance for Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) implementing regulations.8 The Interim Guidance applies to all Department of the Army requests for authorization/verification, including Individual Permits (IPs, i.e., standard permits and letters of permission) and all Regional General Permits (RGPs) and Nationwide Permits (NWPs). The State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) has 30 days to respond to a determination that a proposed activity, which otherwise qualifies for an NWP or an RGP, has no effect or no adverse effect on a historic property. If the SHPO/THPO does not respond within 30 days of notification, the Los Angeles District may proceed with verification. If the SHPO/THPO disagrees with the District’s determination, the District may work with the SHPO/THPO to resolve the disagreement or request an opinion from the ACHP. The USACE will submit the Draft Jurisdictional Delineation Report to the SHPO/THPO for review prior to initiating the actual regulatory process.

Please note that, if the USACE determines that the drainages/waterbodies are jurisdictional and would be impacted by project implementation, the Applicant will be required to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB before the USACE will issue the Section 404 Permit. If the USACE determines that the impacted drainage/waterbody is not jurisdictional, the Applicant will be required to obtain RWQCB authorization under the provisions of a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD).

Jurisdictional Determinations
Pursuant to USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-02 (dated June 26, 2008), the USACE can issue two types of jurisdictional determinations to implement Section 404 of the CWA:

Approved Jurisdictional Determinations and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations.9 An Approved Jurisdictional Determination is an official USACE determination that jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”, “Navigable Waters of the U.S.”, or both are either present or absent on a site. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination also identifies the precise limits of jurisdictional waters on a project site.

The USACE will provide an Approved Jurisdictional Determination when (1) an Applicant requests an official jurisdictional determination; (2) an Applicant contests jurisdiction over a particular water body or wetland; or (3) when the USACE determines that jurisdiction does not exist over a particular water body or wetland. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination then becomes the USACE’s official determination that can then be relied upon over a five-year period to request regulatory authorization as part of the permit application.

In addition, an Applicant may decline to request an Approved Jurisdictional Determination and instead obtain a USACE IP or General Permit Authorization based on a Preliminary Jurisdictional 8 USACE. 2007 (January 31). Memorandum: Interim Guidance for Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Implementing Regulations. Washington, D.C.:

USACE. 9 USACE. 2008b (June 26). Regulatory Guidance Letter. Jurisdictional Determinations. Washington, D.C.: USACE.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-5 Summary of Regulatory Authority Determination or, in certain circumstances (e.g., authorizations by non-reporting nationwide general permits), with no Jurisdictional Determination.

Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations are non-binding, advisory in nature, and may not be appealed. They indicate that there may be “waters of the U.S.” on a project site. An Applicant may elect to use a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination to voluntarily waive or set aside questions regarding CWA jurisdiction over a site, usually in the interest of expediting the permitting process.

The USACE will determine what form of Jurisdictional Determination is appropriate for a particular project site.

The USACE Regulatory Branch Offices will coordinate with the USEPA Regional Office and USACE Headquarters (HQ), as outlined in its January 28, 2008, memorandum entitled “Process for Coordinating Jurisdictional Determinations Conducted Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Light of the Rapanos and SWANCC Supreme Court Decisions”.10 The guidance provided in this memorandum is quoted as follows:

1. Effective immediately, unless and until paragraph 5(b) of the June 5, 2007, Rapanos guidance coordination memorandum is modified by a joint memorandum from Army and EPA, we will follow these procedures:
a. For jurisdictional determinations involving significant nexus determinations, USACE districts will send copies of draft jurisdictional delineations via e-mail to appropriate EPA regional offices. The EPA regional office will have 15 calendar days to decide whether to take the draft jurisdictional delineation as a special case under the January 19, 1989, “Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the USEPA Concerning the Determination of the Section 404 Program and the Application of the Exceptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act.” If the EPA regional office does not respond to the district within 15 days, the district will finalize the jurisdictional determination. b. For jurisdictional determinations involving isolated waters determinations, the agencies will continue to follow the procedure in paragraph 5(b) of June 5, 2007, coordination memorandum, until a new coordination memorandum is signed by USACE and EPA. (In accordance with paragraph 6 of the June 5, 2007, coordination memorandum, this is a 21- day timeline that can only be changed through a joint memorandum between agencies).

2. Approved JDs are not required for non-reporting NWPs, unless the project proponent specifically requests an approved JD. For proposed activities that may qualify for authorization under a State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) or RGP, an approved JD is not required unless requested by the project proponent.

3. The USACE will continue to work with EPA to resolve the JDs involving significant nexus and isolated waters determinations that are currently in the elevation process.

4. USACE districts will continue posting completed Approved JD Forms on their web pages.
10 USACE. 2008c (January 28). Memorandum for Commander, Major Subordinate Commands and District Commands. Process for Coordinating Jurisdictional Determinations Conducted Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Light of the Rapanos and SWANCC Supreme Court Decisions. Washington, D.C.: USACE.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-6 Summary of Regulatory Authority Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California through the regulation of discharges to surface waters under the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). The RWQCB’s jurisdiction extends to all “waters of the State” and to all “waters of the U.S.”, including wetlands (isolated and non-isolated).

Section 401 of the CWA provides the RWQCB with the authority to regulate, through a Water Quality Certification, any proposed, federally permitted activity that may affect water quality.

Among such activities are discharges of dredged or fill material permitted by the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Section 401 requires the RWQCB to provide certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity which may result in discharge to navigable waters will not violate water quality standards. Water Quality Certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge will comply with water quality standards, which contain numeric and narrative objectives that can be found in each of the nine RWQCBs’ Basin Plans.

The Porter-Cologne Act provides the State with very broad authority to regulate “waters of the State” (which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters).

The Porter-Cologne Act has become an important tool in the post-SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Counties vs. Unites States Army Corps of Engineers) and Rapanos era with respect to the State’s authority over isolated waters. Generally, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must file an ROWD when there is no federal nexus, such as under Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. Although “waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the RWQCB interprets this to include fill discharge into water bodies.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Issuance of the USACE Section 404 Permit would be contingent upon the approval of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. Also, the RWQCB requires certification of the project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation before it will approve the Section 401 Water Quality Certification or ROWD. The RWQCB, as a responsible agency, will use the project’s CEQA document to satisfy its own CEQA-compliance requirements.

On June 1, 2020, the USEPA finalized the “Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule” to implement the water quality certification process consistent with the text and structure of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The final rule establishes procedures that promote consistent implementation of CWA section 401 and regulatory certainty in the federal licensing and permitting process. The new regulation includes reviews and approvals by the USACE prior to the RWQCB issuing a 401 Certification and reviews and approvals by the EPA prior to the USACE issuing a 404. The new 401 rule went into effect on September 11, 2020.

The new certification rule defines a discharge subject to 401 Certification as a discharge from a point source into a water of the United States. The new rule also states that States with additional water quality regulations cannot use these to expand the certification request.

The new rule requires all project proponents to request a pre-filing meeting with the RWQCB at least 30 days prior to filing a 401 “Certification Request”. The filing procedure has been simplified to require the filing of a “Certification Request”, rather than the acceptance of a “complete application”. The certification request has nine mandatory components:

1. identify the project proponent(s) and a point of contact;

2. identify the proposed project;
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-7 Summary of Regulatory Authority

3. identify the applicable federal license or permit;

4. identify the location and nature of any potential discharge that may result from the proposed project and the location of receiving waters;

5. include a description of any methods and means proposed to monitor the discharge and the equipment or measures planned to treat, control, or manage the discharge;

6. include a list of all other federal, interstate, tribal, state, territorial, or local agency authorizations required for the proposed project, including all approvals or denials already received;

7. include documentation that a pre-filing meeting request was submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the certification request;

8. contain the following statement: ‘The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief; and

9. contain the following statement: ‘The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.’
There is a mandatory 30 day wait period between a pre-filing meeting request and the filing of a Certification Request. A Certification Request must be filed with the RWQCB and the USACE concurrently. USACE reviews the Certification Request for the nine required components. The USACE has 15 days to review the Certification Request. The USACE then notifies the RWQCB that request is complete. And concurrently notifies the RWQCB of the reasonable time period to act on the Certification Request. The reasonable time period is not to exceed 1 year. Within 15 days of receipt of the Certification Request, the RWQCB must provide the applicant with the following: 1) date of receipt; 2) applicable reasonable period of time to act on the Certification Request; and 3) date upon which waiver will occur if the certifying authority fails or refuses to act on the Certification Request.

On June 2, 2021, the USEPA published a notice of intention to reconsider and revise the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule. At this time, they are currently accepting public comment. Until a new rule goes into effect, the current 401 Certification Rule stands.

The RWQCB is required under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) to have a “minimum 21- day public comment period” before any action can be taken on the Section 401 application.11 This period closes when the RWQCB acts on the application. Since projects often change or are revised during the Section 401 permit process, the comment period can remain open. The public comment period starts as soon as an application has been received. Generally, the RWQCB Section 401, USACE Section 404, and CDFW Section 1602 permit applications are submitted at the same time.

The RWQCB requires the Applicant to address urban storm water runoff during and after construction in the form of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are intended to address the treatment of pollutants carried by storm water runoff and are required in all complete applications. The notification/application for a CWA Section 401 Water Quality 11 23 CCR §3858(a)
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-8 Summary of Regulatory Authority Certification must also address compliance with the Basin Plan. Please note that filing an application would also require the payment of an application fee which would be based on project impacts. The fee schedule calculator is available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/fees/water_quality/docs/dredgefillcalculator.xlsm.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW has jurisdictional authority over wetland resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code.
12 Activities of State and local agencies as
well as public utilities that are project proponents are regulated by the CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. This section regulates any work that will (1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State.

The CDFW jurisdictional limits are not as clearly defined by regulation as those of the USACE.

While they closely resemble the limits described by USACE regulations, they include riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric and saturated soils conditions. In general, the CDFW takes jurisdiction from the top of a stream bank or to the outer limits of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater.

Notification is generally required for any project that will take place within or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake or within or in the vicinity of tributaries to a river, stream, or lake. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish and other aquatic plant and/or wildlife species. It also includes watercourses that have a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation.

Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
The CDFW enters into a Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement with a project proponent to ensure protection of wildlife and habitat values and acreages.

Prior to construction, a Notification of an LSA must be submitted to the CDFW that describes any proposed lake or streambed alteration that would occur with implementation of a project. The Notification of an LSA must address the initial construction and long-term operation and maintenance of any structures (such as a culvert or a desilting basin) included in the project design that are located within any river, stream, or lake and that may require periodic maintenance. In addition to the formal application materials and the fee, a copy of the appropriate environmental document (e.g., a Mitigated Negative Declaration) should be included in the submittal, consistent with CEQA requirements. The complete notification package must be completed on CDFW’s Environmental Permit Information Management System (EPIMS). This notification will serve as the basis for the CDFW’s issuance of a Section 1602 LSA Agreement.

Note that notification is not required before beginning emergency work, but the CDFW must be notified in writing within 14 days after beginning the work.

After receiving Notification of an LSA Agreement, the CDFW will determine whether an LSA Agreement will be required for the proposed activity. An LSA Agreement will be required if the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. If an LSA Agreement is required, the CDFW may want to conduct an on-site inspection. 12 See §§1600–1616.

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx A-9 Summary of Regulatory Authority If the CDFW does not respond in writing concerning the completeness of the Notification within 30 days of its submittal, the Notification automatically becomes complete. If the CDFW does not submit a draft LSA Agreement to the Applicant within 60 days of the determination of a completed Notification package, the CDFW will issue a letter that either (1) identifies the final date to transmit a draft LSA Agreement or (2) indicates that an LSA Agreement was not required. The CDFW will also indicate that it was unable to meet this mandated compliance date and that, by law, the Applicant is authorized to complete the project without an LSA Agreement as long as the Applicant constructs the project as proposed and complies with all avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described in the submitted Notification package. Please note that, if the project requires revisions to the design or project construction, the CDFW may require submittal of a new Notification/application with an additional 90-day permit process.

If determined to be necessary, the CDFW will prepare a draft LSA Agreement, which will include standard measures to protect fish and wildlife resources during project construction and during ongoing operation and maintenance of any project element that occurs within a CDFW jurisdictional area. The draft Agreement must be transmitted to the Applicant within 60 calendar days of the CDFW’s determination that the notification is complete. It should be noted that the 60-day timeframe might not apply to long-range agreements.

Following receipt of a draft LSA Agreement from the CDFW, the Applicant has 30 calendar days to notify the CDFW concerning the acceptability of the proposed terms, conditions, and measures.

If the Applicant agrees with these terms, conditions and measures, the Agreement must be signed and returned to the CDFW. The Agreement becomes final once the CDFW executes it and an LSA Agreement is issued. Please note that all application fees must be paid and the final certified CEQA documentation must be provided prior to the CDFW’s execution of the Agreement.

ATTACHMENT B

LITERATURE REVIEW DETAILS
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx C-1 Literature Review Details

DESCRIPTIONS OF SOILS IN SURVEY AREA

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SOUTHEASTERN PART
Urban land-Palmview-Tujunga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
 National map unit symbol: 2pt3t
 Elevation: 240 to 1,990 feet
 Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 30 inches
 Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 66 degrees F
 Frost-free period: 350 to 365 days
 Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
 Urban land: 45 percent
 Palmview and similar soils: 25 percent
 Tujunga and similar soils: 20 percent
 Minor components: 10 percent
 Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Urban Land
Setting
 Landform: Alluvial fans

Properties and qualities
 Slope: 0 to 5 percent
 Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layer  Runoff class: Very high

Interpretive groups
 Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified  Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
 Ecological site: R019XG911CA - Loamy Fan
 Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Palmview
Setting
 Landform: Alluvial fans
 Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
 Down-slope shape: Linear
 Across-slope shape: Linear
 Parent material: Discontinuous human-transported material over alluvium derived from granite

Typical profile
 ^A - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
 ^Au - 5 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx C-2 Literature Review Details  2C1 - 15 to 45 inches: fine sandy loam
 2C2 - 45 to 55 inches: fine sandy loam
 2C3 - 55 to 79 inches: fine sandy loam

Properties and qualities
 Slope: 0 to 5 percent
 Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
 Drainage class: Well drained
 Runoff class: Very low
 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
 Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
 Frequency of flooding: None, Rare
 Frequency of ponding: None
 Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)  Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups
 Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified  Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
 Hydrologic Soil Group: B
 Ecological site: R019XG911CA - Loamy Fan
 Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Tujunga
Setting
 Landform: Alluvial fans
 Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
 Down-slope shape: Linear
 Across-slope shape: Linear
 Parent material: Discontinuous human-transported material over alluvium derived from granite

Typical profile
 ^Au - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
 2C1 - 6 to 35 inches: loamy sand
 2C2 - 35 to 72 inches: loamy sand

Properties and qualities
 Slope: 0 to 5 percent
 Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
 Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
 Runoff class: Negligible
 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)  Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
 Frequency of flooding: None, Rare
 Frequency of ponding: None
 Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx C-3 Literature Review Details  Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.0 inches)

Interpretive groups
 Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified  Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
 Hydrologic Soil Group: A
 Ecological site: R019XG911CA - Loamy Fan
 Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components
Typic xerorthents, sandy substratum
 Percent of map unit: 5 percent
 Landform: Alluvial fans
 Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
 Down-slope shape: Linear
 Across-slope shape: Linear
 Hydric soil rating: No
San emigdio
 Percent of map unit: 5 percent
 Landform: Flood plains
 Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
 Down-slope shape: Linear
 Across-slope shape: Linear
 Hydric soil rating: No

Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Technical Reports\JD Report\JD Report_Finkbiner-040623.docx C-4 Literature Review Details

BASIN PLAN BENEFICIAL USES
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) identifies a number of Beneficial Uses, some or all of which may apply to a specific hydrologic unit (HSA), including:

Agricultural Supply (AGR) waters; Aquaculture (AQUA) waters; Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL) waters; Cold Fresh Water Habitat (COLD) waters; Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM) waters; Estuarine Habitat (EST) waters; Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH); Groundwater Recharge (GWR) waters; Industrial Service Supply waters (IND); Marine Habitat (MAR) waters; Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) waters; Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN) waters; Navigation (NAV) waters; Hydropower Generation (POW) waters; Industrial Process Supply (PROC) waters; Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) waters; Water Contact Recreation (REC1) waters; Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2) waters; Inland Saline Water Habitat (SAL) waters; Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL) waters; Spawning, Reproduction and Development (SPWN) waters; Warm Fresh Water Habitat (WARM) waters; Wetland Habitat (WET) waters; and Wildlife Habitat (WILD) waters.

Beneficial Uses associated with Amargosa Creek which flows along the western edge of the Project site, are described below; Beneficial Uses not described below do not apply to Amargosa Creek.
 MUN waters support community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.
 GWR waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes that may include, but are not limited to, future extraction, maintaining water quality, or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.
 WARM waters support warm water ecosystems that may include, but are not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife (including invertebrates).
 WILD waters support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources.  REC-1 waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.
 REC-2 waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.

ATTACHMENT C

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo Locations Exhibit C-1
(Rev: 04/03/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\CRA\3CRA120100\Graphics\JD_Report\ex_Photo_Locations.pdf <
! <
!
<
!
!
<
<
!
<
!
1 2
3 4 5
E Foothill Blvd
N Wabash Ave
N Minnesota Ave
E Mountain View Ave
S Wabash Ave
S M ni nesota Ave
E Dalton Ave
E Meda Ave
Lesterwest Way
N Cullen Ave S Cullen Ave
N Pasadena Ave
E Bennett Ave
D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\MXD\JD\ex_Photo_Locations_20230313.mxd 200 100 0 200 ² Feet
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2021
Survey Area
<
! Photo Location and Direction
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Site Photos Exhibit C-2
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Photo Location 1. March 2, 2023. View of Little Dalton Wash, facing downstream. (03/14/2023 JVR) D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\GRAPHICS\JD\ex_SP.pdf D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\GRAPHICS\JD\Att_SP1_20230313.ai Photo Location 1. March 2, 2023. View of Little Dalton Wash, facing upstream.

Site Photos Exhibit C-3
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Photo Location 3, March 2, 2023. View of Little Dalton Wash, facing upstream. (03/14/2023 JVR) D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\GRAPHICS\JD\ex_SP.pdf D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\GRAPHICS\JD\Att_SP2_20230313.ai Photo Location 2, March 2, 2023. View of Little Dalton Wash, facing downstream.

Site Photos Exhibit C-4
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project Photo Location 5, March 2, 2023. Overview of project area conditions, facing north. (03/14/2023 JVR) D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\GRAPHICS\JD\ex_SP.pdf D:\Projects\3CRA\120100\GRAPHICS\JD\Att_SP3_20230313.ai Photo Location 4, March 2, 2023. Overview of project area conditions, facing northwest.

APPENDIX C-1

PALEONTOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES DATA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

November 29, 2022
Charles Cisneros
Psomas
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 3CRA120100 Project, Los Angeles County Dear Mr. Cisneros:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Page 2 of 2 ends

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the attached list for more information.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Research & Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
December 11, 2022
Psomas
Attn: Charles Cisneros
re: Paleontological resources for the Project 3CRA120100 Dear Charles:

I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the Project 3CRA120100 area as outlined on the portion of the Glendora USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on November 21, 2022. We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth.

The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA).

Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth

LACM VP
6166, 6167,
6172, 6173,
7471
Puddingstone
Reservoir, San Jose
Hills Puente Formation
Sturgeonfish (Prionurus), Mako
shark (Isurus planus), Extinct
bony fish (Etringus), Mola
(Molidae), other Fish
(Osteichthyes) Surface

LACM VP
7930-7932
Near the intersection
of Shadow Oak Dr
and S Woodgate Dr.

Monterey Formation
(Yorba Shale;
sandstone &
diatomaceous
shale)
Bony fish (Osteichthyes),
including ray-finned fishes
(Clupeidae)

6.5 - 7
feet bgs
LACM VP 1728
W of intersection of
English Rd & Peyton
Dr, Chino
Unknown (light
brown shale with
interbeds of very
coarse brown sand;
Pleistocene)
Horse (Equus), camel
(Camelops)
15-20 feet
bgs

LACM VP
7268, 7271
Sundance
Condominiums, S of
Los Serranos Golf
Course
Unknown
(Pleistocene) Horse (Equus) Unknown
LACM VP 7508 Near intersection of Unknown formation Ground sloth (Nothrotheriops); Unknown Vellano Club Dr. and
Palmero Dr.,
Oakcrest
Development; N of
Serrano Canyon,
Chino Hills
(Pleistocene) elephant family (Proboscidea);
horse (Equus)
LACM VP 2027
1600 block, Bridgen
Rd., Pasadena
Unknown Formation
(Pleistocene) Mammoth (Mammuthus) Unknown
VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface This records search covers only the records of the NHMLA. It is not intended as a paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes of CEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Bureau of Land Management or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Sincerely,
Alyssa Bell, Ph.D.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
ReportNum DocAddlCitLetter Status OtherIDs Xrefs Authors CitYear CitMonth CitTitle CitPublisher CitPages LA-06797 Demcak, Carol and Chris A. Demcak 2002 Highway Project Located at 158 1/2 N. Glendora Ave., Glendora. Caltrans District 7 LA-06798 Abeyta, Daniel 2000 Glendora District Office Landscaping, Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles County Angeles National Forest 8LA-07316 Shaver, Noelle C.S. 2004 A Phase I Historical Resources Study for the Proposed Arboreta Residential Development Project in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California Jones & StokesLA-07323 Bartoy, Kevin M. and Killackey, Kathryn 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sc-419-02 City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California Pacific Legacy, Inc.LA-09235 Bonner, Wayne H. 2007 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street Communications, LLC Candidate LA2304B (VZW Growth Investment), 320 West Carrol Avenue. Glendora, Los Angeles County, California Michael Brandman Associates 13
LA-09699 McNiel, Steve 1996 Historical and Architectural Evaluation of the Mt. Baldy District Ranger Office on the Angeles National Forest, Glendora, California University of California, Davis 76 LA-10896 Greenwood, David 2004 Historic Properties Survey and Effects Report for the Gold Line Phase II Project (Pasadena to Montclair) Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA Myra L. Franck/Jones & Stokes, Applied EarthWorks 105LA-12525 Poka, Ervin 2003 NHPA Section 106 Review; Metro Gold Line Phase II Extension Project Federal Highway Adminstration, Federal Transit Administration 24 ReportNum
LA-06797LA-06798LA-07316LA-07323LA-09235LA-09699LA-10896LA-12525 CitMaps ReportType InventorySize InventoryDisclosure InventoryCollections InventoryNotes Resources ResourceCount HasInformals Counties Maps Address PLSS Literature search 1 ac 0 No Los Angeles GLENDORAArchitectural/historical, Evaluation 1 ac Not for publication No No map, unmapable, unable to locate even on Thomas Guide | Mapped to P-19-189776, removed from unmappables folder. 19-189776 1 No Los Angeles GLENDORA 110 North Wabash Ave. Glendora Archaeological, Field study 27.6 ac 0 No Los Angeles GLENDORAArchaeological, Field study <.01 ac OHP#081783 is within .5 miles (Glendora Historic District) 0 No Los Angeles GLENDORA
Archaeological, Field study 19-180677 1 No Los Angeles GLENDORAArchitectural/historical, Evaluation 0 No Los Angeles GLENDORA 110 North Wabash Ave. GlendoraOther research QC 19-000075, 19-179337, 19-179357, 19-180728, 19-183943, 19-185548, 19-185894, 19-186059, 19-187944, 19-189103, 19-189104, 19-189105, 19-189106, 19-189107, 19-189108, 19-189109, 19-189110, 19-189111, 19-189112, 19-189113, 19-189114, 19-189115, 19-189116, 19-189117, 19-189118, 19-189119, 19-189120, 19-189121, 19-189122, 19-189123, 19-189124, 19-189125, 19-189126, 19-189127, 19-189128, 19-189129, 19-189130, 19-189131, 19-189132, 19-189133, 19-189134, 19-189135, 19-189136, 19-189137, 19-189138, 19-189139, 19-189140, 19-189141, 19-189142, 19-189143, 19-189144, 19-189145, 19-189146, 19-189147, 19-189148, 19-189149, 19-189150, 19-189151, 19-189152, 19-189153, 19-189154, 19-189155, 19-189156, 19-189157, 19-189158, 19-189159, 19-189160, 19-189161, 19-189162, 19-189163, 19-189164, 19-189165, 19-189166, 19-189167, 19-189168, 19-189169, 19-189170, 19-189171, 19-189172, 19-189173, 19-189174, 19-189175, 19-189176, 19-189177, 19-189178, 19-189179, 19-189180, 19-189181, 19-189182, 19-189183, 19-189184, 19-189185, 19-189186, 19-189187, 19-189188, 19-189189, 19-189190, 19-189191, 19-189192, 19-189193, 19-189194, 19-189195, 19-189196, 19-189197, 19-189198, 19-189199, 19-189200, 19-189201, 19-189202, 19-189203, 19-189204, 19-189205, 19-189206, 19-189207, 19-189208, 19-189209, 19-189210, 19-189211 118 No Los Angeles

AZUSA, BALDWIN PARK, GLENDORA, MT WILSON, ONTARIO, SAN DIMAS Archaeological, Field study QC 0 No Los Angeles

AZUSA, GLENDORA, MT WILSON, ONTARIO, SAN DIMAS
PrimaryString TrinomialString ResourceName Status OtherIDs P-19-189124 The John & Anna Billhamer House Resource Name - The John & Anna Billhamer House P-19-189149 William & Rhoda Murphy House Resource Name - William & Rhoda Murphy House P-19-189150
California Citrus Union Packing
Headquarters & Glendora Co-Op
Assn
Resource Name - California Citrus Union Packing
Headquarters & Glendora Co-Op Assn;
Other - Amy's Trading Post
P-19-189155 Betty Svenson House Resource Name - Betty Svenson House P-19-189156 John C Whitmer House Resource Name - John C Whitmer House P-19-189157
P-19-189158 Virginia Earl Ayers House Resource Name - Virginia Earl Ayers House P-19-189159 Marvin & Barbara Moon House Resource Name - Marvin & Barbara Moon House P-19-189160
P-19-189162 John Abbott House Resource Name - John Abbott House P-19-189163
P-19-189164 George Greitmann House Resource Name - George Greitmann House P-19-189165
P-19-189166 Clyde M Pritchett House Resource Name - Clyde M Pritchett House P-19-189167 August Friedrich House Resource Name - August Friedrich House P-19-189168
P-19-189169 Fair & Anna Hall House Resource Name - Fair & Anna Hall House P-19-189170
P-19-189175 Charles & Josephine Camp House Resource Name - Charles & Josephine Camp House P-19-189776 Mt Baldy Ranger District Office OHP Property Number - 081821; Resource Name - Mt Baldy Ranger District Office
PrimaryString
P-19-189124
P-19-189149
P-19-189150
P-19-189155
P-19-189156
P-19-189157
P-19-189158
P-19-189159
P-19-189160
P-19-189162
P-19-189163
P-19-189164
P-19-189165
P-19-189166
P-19-189167
P-19-189168
P-19-189169
P-19-189170
P-19-189175
P-19-189776
Xrefs ResType Age
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Building Historic
Is an element of district 19-187113 Building Historic
PrimaryString
P-19-189124
P-19-189149
P-19-189150
P-19-189155
P-19-189156
P-19-189157
P-19-189158
P-19-189159
P-19-189160
P-19-189162
P-19-189163
P-19-189164
P-19-189165
P-19-189166
P-19-189167
P-19-189168
P-19-189169
P-19-189170
P-19-189175
P-19-189776
InfoBase Attribs ResourceDisclosure ResourceCollections Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP06 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02
Survey HP02 Not for publication
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP03 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Not for publication
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Not for publication
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Survey HP02 Unrestricted
Other HP14 Unrestricted
PrimaryString
P-19-189124
P-19-189149
P-19-189150
P-19-189155
P-19-189156
P-19-189157
P-19-189158
P-19-189159
P-19-189160
P-19-189162
P-19-189163
P-19-189164
P-19-189165
P-19-189166
P-19-189167
P-19-189168
P-19-189169
P-19-189170
P-19-189175
P-19-189776
RecordingEvents Reports CountyName
2003 (Carrie Chasteen, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jones & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2003 (Alma Carlisle, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jones & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jones & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jones & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2003 (Alma Carlisle, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2003 (Alma Carlisle, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (Alma Carlisle / David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles
2003 (Alma Carlisle / David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles
2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2003 (Alma Carlisle, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (Carrie Chasteen, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2003 (Alma Carlisle, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2004 (David Greenwood, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896 Los Angeles 2003 (Alma Carlisle, Myra Frank & Assoc. / Jone & Stokes) LA-10896, LA-11968 Los Angeles 1996 (Edward S. McNiel, UCDavis) LA-06798 Los Angeles
PrimaryString
P-19-189124
P-19-189149
P-19-189150
P-19-189155
P-19-189156
P-19-189157
P-19-189158
P-19-189159
P-19-189160
P-19-189162
P-19-189163
P-19-189164
P-19-189165
P-19-189166
P-19-189167
P-19-189168
P-19-189169
P-19-189170
P-19-189175
P-19-189776
Maps Address PLSS
SAN DIMAS 137 W Commercial St
San Dimas

GLENDORA
320 S Glendora Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
015-013)

GLENDORA
243 S Vermont Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
002-001);
255 S Vermont Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
002-001)
GLENDORA 296 W Carroll Ave
Glendora
GLENDORA 300 W Carroll Ave
Glendora
GLENDORA 308 W Carroll Ave
Glendora

GLENDORA
328 S Glendora Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
015-016)

GLENDORA
324 S Glendora Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
015-014)

GLENDORA
212-218 W Carroll Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
002-009)

GLENDORA
422 S Glendora Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
014-006)
GLENDORA 157 S Pennsylvania Ave
Glendora

GLENDORA
324 S Vista Bonita Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
014-023)
GLENDORA 303 W Carroll Ave
Glendora
GLENDORA 154 S Washington Ave
Glendora
GLENDORA 145 S Washington Ave
Glendora
GLENDORA 231 S Vermont Ave
Glendora

GLENDORA
332 S Glendora Ave
Glendora (APN 8639-
015-017)
GLENDORA 220 W Carroll Ave
Glendora
GLENDORA 108 E Ada Ave Glendora
(APN 8639-015-001)

GLENDORA
110 N Wabash Ave
Glendora (APN 8638-11-
901)
APPENDIX C-2

HISTORIC REPORT

Historic Built Environment Report for
the Finkbiner Stormwater Capture
Project
City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California
Prepared For:

P S O M A S
225 S Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Jillian K. Neary, Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner and
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District, Engineering Division
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 930
Los Angeles, California 90017
Prepared By:
2061 N. Los Robles Avenue, #205
Pasadena, California 91104
Authors: Marlena Krcelich, BA, Sarah Corder, MFA, and Samantha Murray, MA November 2023
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
i November 2023
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................2

1.1 Project Location Description ....................................................................................................................2

1.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................................................................9 2 Survey and Research Methods ...................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Built Environment Survey........................................................................................................................ 15

2.2 Background Research............................................................................................................................... 15 3 Historic Context................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 City of Glendora ......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 The Role of Flood Control in Glendora ............................................................................................. 22

3.3 Project Site Historic Context.................................................................................................................. 26 4 Identified Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 31

4.1 Finkbiner Park.............................................................................................................................................. 31

4.2 Little Dalton Wash..................................................................................................................................... 39 5 Significance Evaluations ................................................................................................................................... 42

5.1 Finkbiner Park.............................................................................................................................................. 42

5.2 Little Dalton Wash..................................................................................................................................... 46 6 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 49

6.1 Identified Resources ................................................................................................................................. 49

6.2 Analysis of Potential Adverse Effects/Impacts................................................................................ 49 7 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figures
Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Project Footprint...........................................................................................................................................7 Figure 3. Area of Potential Effects.............................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Sketch Map of Finkbiner Park............................................................................................................... 38 Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Big Dalton Dam (Los Angeles County Library 1928)................................................................... 24 Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
ii November 2023
Exhibit 2. Map showing the extent of the LACDA Project (USACE 1991) ............................................... 26 Exhibit 2. Overview of Little Dalton Wash, facing southwest. ..................................................................... 39 Exhibit 3. Overview of Little Dalton Wash, facing northeast........................................................................ 40 Exhibit 4. Overview of Little Dalton Wash pedestrian crossing from East Dalton Avenue to Skatepark, facing southwest. ................................................................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 5. Overview of pedestrian crossing north of American Legion Building, facing southwest. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 Appendices
Appendix A DPR Forms: Finkbiner Park and Little Dalton Wash Appendix B Preparers' Resumes
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
1 November 2023
Executive Summary
South Environmental was retained by Psomas to complete a Historic Built Environment Technical Report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project in Glendora, California. This report includes the results of an intensive-level pedestrian survey of all built environment resources over 50 years old within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE); site development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of Finkbiner Park and the Little Dalton Wash for historical significance in consideration of federal, state, and local designation criteria and integrity requirements.

The purpose of this report is to determine if the proposed project will result in adverse effects to historic properties located within or adjacent to the project site. This report was prepared in conformance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulation Title 36 CFR Part 800; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15064.5 for historical resources; and all applicable local laws and regulations.

As a result of the historical significance evaluation, Finkbiner Park was found not eligible for designation in the NRHP and is not considered an historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA.

However, the park was found eligible for local designation under City Criterion 1 as Glendora’s first park and an important feature of Glendora’s historical development and cultural heritage. Finkbiner Park retains its historic integrity and ability to convey important historical associations at the local level of significance. Therefore, while Finkbiner Park is not considered a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA, it is considered an historical resource under CEQA. The proposed project will not result in a significant impact to Finkbiner Park, as the project will not cause any changes to the park's basic character-defining features, which include its footprint and function.

Little Dalton Wash appears eligible under NRHP Criterion A, CRHR Criterion 1, and City Criterion 1 as a contributor to the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) Project which has a period of significance of 1936 to 1967. Therefore, the Wash is considered an historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA and a historical resource under CEQA. However, the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects to the character-defining features that convey the Wash's significance under Criterion A, which include its alignment, concrete channelization, and its connection to the larger LACDA.

In conclusion, the proposed project will result in no adverse effects to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and no significant impacts to historical resources under CEQA.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
2 November 2023
1 Introduction
South Environmental was retained by Psomas to complete a historic built environment technical report for the Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project located in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California. This report includes the results of an intensive-level pedestrian survey of all built environment resources over 50 years old within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE); site development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of Finkbiner Park and the Little Dalton Wash for historical significance in consideration of federal, state, and local designation criteria and integrity requirements.

The purpose of this report is to determine if the proposed project will result in adverse effects to historic properties located within the project APE. This report was prepared in conformance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulation Title 36 CFR Part 800; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15064.5 for historical resources; and all applicable local laws and regulations.

This report was prepared by South Environmental Architectural Historian Marlena Krcelich, BA and Principal Architectural Historian Sarah Corder, MFA, with Quality Assurance/Quality Control provided by Cultural Resources Director Samantha Murray, MA (resumes provided in Appendix B).

1.1 Project Location Description

1.1.1 Project Location
The project site is located at 160 North Wabash Avenue in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California. The project site includes a portion of Finkbiner Park (160 North Wabash Avenue) and the Little Dalton Wash. The project site is located on the east side of North Wabash Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, west of North Cullen Avenue, and south of East Bennett Avenue in the City of Glendora. The site is located within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Glendora 7.5 Minute Topographical Quadrangle and falls within Section 30 of Township 1 North, Range 9 West (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

1.1.2 Project Description
The proposed project would construct a regional stormwater runoff capture facility, or Best Management Practices (BMP), within Finkbiner Park to provide multiple benefits including improved flood control, water quality, and water supply (through infiltration to groundwater). The stormwater facility would involve diverting runoff from two adjacent drainage features into an underground capture, treatment, and infiltration facility situated beneath the existing ballfields. The project represents an opportunity to implement regional-scale pollutant load reductions from a sizeable Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
3 November 2023
drainage area in the Upper San Gabriel River (USGR) Watershed as well as increase infiltration to the underlying groundwater aquifer (Main San Gabriel Basin).

The project would also include in-kind replacement of existing facilities within the site that require demolition to implement the stormwater BMP with new recreation facilities and features; conversion of the alley along the northern site boundary into a green alley through installation of permeable pavement; and installation of a recirculating stream, native landscaping, and adjacent path in the southeast portion of the site as a new passive recreation opportunity in the park. The restoration of demolished features provides the City an opportunity to rehabilitate these recreation facilities as part of the Los Angeles County Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP). Depending on financial outcomes, the recirculating stream may not be feasible to construct. However, in the event the stream is not constructed, the project would still include native landscaping and path. For the purposes of the environmental analysis, it is assumed the recirculated stream would be constructed. The proposed project components are discussed further below.

Stormwater Management
Diversion structures generally apply to off-line regional projects where stormwater is diverted from a major water conveyance and directed to a separate, engineered site at a predetermined maximum rate. The project proposes to divert 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the adjacent Little Dalton Wash, an open concrete channel that runs along the southern site boundary; and divert 5 cfs from Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s (LACFCD) MTD 1129, a 36-inch-diameter subsurface reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) running generally north-south beneath the eastern portion of the site.

A drop-inlet structure is proposed at the channel diversion point and an access manhole is proposed at the storm drain diversion point to capture stormwater during low-flow and storm events. The dropinlet structures would direct runoff into new pipelines connecting to a pretreatment system and then to the subsurface infiltration gallery. A portion of the captured runoff would be returned, after pretreatment, to the inlet of the recirculated stream to flow downstream (towards the southwest) to the stream outlet. The outlet would have a connection to the Little Dalton Wash diversion pipeline.

Through this interconnected system, the stream feature would recirculate pretreated runoff. These components, except for the infiltration galley, would be situated along the south and southeastern portions of the project site.

The 5.3-acre-foot infiltration gallery would be the largest component of the stormwater management system and would be located beneath the southwestern portion of the site. The infiltration gallery would have a subsurface area of approximately 38,333 square feet (0.88 acre) and a storage depth of 6 feet. The infiltration gallery would require two access manholes, to be situated along the western edge; and two air vents, one that would extend from the western edge of the gallery to the western edge of the ballfield and one that would extend from the southern edge of the gallery to the southern edge of the ballfield. Except for the manholes and stream inlet and outlet, all proposed engineering infrastructure would be located underground. The stream infrastructure would be minimally visible at Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
4 November 2023
the surface, as the goal is to provide a naturalized surface condition. Other underground components of the BMP include valves, meters, filters, relocated backflow preventor, pump station, electric connections, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.

Recreation Facilities, Hardscape, and Landscape
Following installation of the stormwater infrastructure, the facilities that were demolished to facilitate installation of the BMP would be replaced in-kind with new facilities. The materials, finishes, and other details of the new recreation features were selected to reflect the current needs of the City and its residents based on anticipated park use, water conservation efforts, safety and security, and long-term operation and maintenance.

Four ballfields meeting the specifications for Little League softball and a soccer field meeting the American Youth Soccer League (AYSL) specifications for under 12 (U12) use would be in essentially the same place as the existing facilities. However, the fields would be finished with an artificial turf sports surface to conserve approximately six acre-feet per year (afy) of potable water used for irrigation. New bleachers, dugouts, and storage boxes around the ballfield perimeter would be constructed. A full-size and half basketball court would be construction to the east on the fields, in a similar location to the existing condition. A new picnic area would be placed on the south side of the basketball courts, between the fields, courts, and new stream and path. The asphalt-paved alley to the north of the sports fields, between Wabash Avenue and Minnesota Avenue, would be resurfaced with permeable pavers.

This would reduce runoff from this alley through facilitating more infiltration and would improve the visual condition of the alley. Additionally, the upper two inches of asphalt paving on the segment of Minnesota Avenue at the intersection of the alley and park would be removed and resurfaced; and a concrete ramp would be installed in the southwest corner of this intersection to facilitate universal access.

High-voltage light-emitting diode (LED) field lighting would be installed to provide adequate lighting for evening play as well as for security; the proposed light fixtures would be shielded and downward directed to minimize light spill beyond the intended area. There would be the same number of fixtures, or less, than in the present condition. The new, modern light fixtures are expected to generate less glare than the existing fixtures and would be more energy efficient. Other amenities proposed throughout the rehabilitated park area include water fountains, trash receptables, benches, seatwalls, a flagpole, safety bollards where Minnesota Avenue abuts the park, and perimeter chain-link fencing with pedestrian and vehicular gates.

There are 12 existing trees within the project site. Of these, 6 would be protected in place during construction and 6 would be removed and replaced consistent with City requirements. New landscaping with native and/or drought tolerant plant species would be installed on the north and west sides of the new ballfields, between the bleachers and dugouts; along the proposed concrete path paralleling Little Dalton Wash on the south side of the site; and throughout the recirculated stream area.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
5 November 2023

1.1.3 Area of Potential Effect
According to Section 106 of the NHPA, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist. Determination of the APE is influenced by a project’s setting, the scale and nature of the undertaking, and the different kinds of effects that may result from the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(d)).

The proposed project has the potential to impact two built environment resources over 50 years old:

Finkbiner Park (1949) and the Little Dalton Wash (1961). Therefore, the APE for historic built environment resources encompasses all of Finkbiner Park and the Little Dalton Wash channel.

Although the project only proposes to impact a small portion of the overall channel, the entirety of Little Dalton Wash was evaluated in consideration of potential effects to the larger resource (Figure 3).

Because proposed project activities will be limited to the Little Dalton Wash and Finkbiner Park, it was determined that adjacent built environment resources over 50 years old (i.e., the United States Forest Service Ranger Station located at 111 North Wabash Avenue and the Boulder Grange/Bandholt Home/La Fetra Senior Center located at 333 Foothill Boulevard) did not warrant inclusion in the APE, as no potential effects were identified for these properties.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
9 November 2023

1.2 Regulatory Setting

1.2.1 Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act
The NHPA established the NRHP and the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and provided that states may establish State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) to carry out some of the functions of the NHPA. Most significantly for federal agencies responsible for managing cultural resources, Section 106 of the NHPA directs that
[t]he head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Section 106 also affords the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking (16 U.S.C. 470f). 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800 (36 CFR 800) implements Section 106 of the NHPA. It defines the steps necessary to identify historic properties (those cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP), including consultation with federally recognized Native American tribes to identify resources with important cultural values; to determine whether or not they may be adversely affected by a proposed undertaking; and the process for eliminating, reducing, or mitigating the adverse effects.

The content of 36 CFR 60.4 defines criteria for determining eligibility for listing in the NRHP. The significance of cultural resources identified during an inventory must be formally evaluated for historic significance in consultation with the ACHP and the California SHPO to determine if the resources are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Cultural resources may be considered eligible for listing if they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP is the United States’ official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation. Overseen by the National Park Service, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks, as well as historic areas administered by the National Park Service.

NRHP guidelines for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
10 November 2023
and heritage. Its criteria are designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the NRHP. For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of the following criteria:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity is defined in NRHP guidance, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria,” as “the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the NRHP, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the NRHP criteria, but it also must have integrity” (NPS 1990). NRHP guidance further asserts that properties be completed at least 50 years ago to be considered for eligibility.

Properties completed fewer than 50 years before evaluation must be proven to be “exceptionally important” (criteria consideration to be considered for listing.

1.2.2 State
California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j)).

In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), enumerated below. According to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
11 November 2023
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
• California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.”
• California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” It also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of an historical resource.
• California Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” • California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony. • California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
12 November 2023
preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).) If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(q)), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)).

A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(q)).

In turn, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(2) states the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
13 November 2023
in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.

1.2.3 Local
City of Glendora (21.03.050 Historic Preservation)
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements and areas within the city that reflect special elements of historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic heritage for the following reasons.

1. To encourage public knowledge, understanding, appreciation and use of the city’s past;

2. To foster civic pride in the beauty and personality of the city and in the accomplishments of its past;

3. To identify and resolve, as early as possible, conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses;

4. To encourage conservation of building material resources through maintenance and restoration of existing historical structures;

5. To promote the enjoyment and use of cultural resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the city;

6. To encourage modification of historical buildings that is compatible with the historical character of such buildings;

7. To promote awareness of the economic benefits of historic preservation.

As part of the City of Glendora Municipal Code, the following criteria are used to determine which historic resources or landmarks shall be designated based upon one or more of the following findings:

1. The proposed preserved features exemplify or reflect special elements of historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic heritage.

2. The proposed preserved features are identified with persons or events significant in local state or national history.

3. The proposed features embody distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction or are valuable examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
14 November 2023

4. The proposed preserved features are representative of the notable work of a builder, designer or architect.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
15 November 2023
2 Survey and Research Methods

2.1 Built Environment Survey
The built environment survey was completed on March 17, 2023 by South Environmental Principal Architectural Historian, Sarah Corder, MFA. The survey entailed walking all accessible portions of the APE, including the entirety of Finkbiner Park and the exterior of all buildings and structures within the park. Portions of the Little Dalton Wash that occur within the APE were also photographed from all publicly accessible areas. Each built environment resource was documented with notes and photographs specifically noting any character-defining features, spatial relationships, observed alterations, or landscaping features. Details on built environment resources identified within the APE are provided in Section 4 (Identified Resources).

2.2 Background Research

2.2.1 Previous Evaluations
Finkbiner Park
There is no indication that Finkbiner Park has been previously evaluated for historical significance.

While the Park does appear in the City of Glendora’s Historic Core Walking Tour brochure, the author’s note the following (Glendora Historic Preservation Committee n.d.):

This Walking Tour of Downtown Glendora and Environs is intended to foster awareness of the history and the built landscape of our community. It focuses mainly on the Downtown Business District (DBD) and adjacent neighborhoods. What constitutes “historical” is somewhat subjective but the writers have tried to include sites that have somehow played a role in this community. A later driving tour guide to sites outside of the DBD is contemplated.

Little Dalton Wash
A review of the State Office of Historic Preservation’s (SHPO) Built Environmental Resources Directory (BERD) indicates that the Little Dalton Wash was previously evaluated for historical significance in 2018 and was found ineligible for the NRHP (status code 6Y). Correspondence with SHPO (Ref#:

COE_2018_0910_001) is also cited. South Environmental reached out to USACE Los Angeles District to request an electronic copy of the previous evaluation and its associated SHPO correspondence on April 19, 2023, and again on July 10, 2023. USACE Archaeologist Daniel S. Grijalva responded on July 10, 2023, and stated that the USACE could not locate a copy of the SHPO correspondence. South Environmental emailed state historians at SHPO on July 11, 2023, to obtain a copy of the previous correspondence. No response has been received to date.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
16 November 2023
LSA Associates is currently preparing a cultural resources assessment for the Rio Hondo/San Gabriel River Water Quality Group Autosampler Project, which includes the Little Dalton Wash. As part of this study, the Little Dalton Wash was evaluated for historical significance. The Wash was found ineligible at the individual level of significance, but potentially eligible as a contributing feature to a potential Los Angeles County Flood Control Historic District.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District
On September 20, 2019, SHPO concurred with the USACE's determination that the Los Angeles River (LAR) Channel is eligible under Criteria A and C with a period of significance of 1936-1960 (COE_2019_0801_002) within the context of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) Project.

Previous studies (USACE 2019 and Kremkau et al. 2021) have demonstrated through cursory evaluation that the entire LAR Channel meets the threshold for NRHP eligibility under Criterion A and C at the local level of significance. The period of significance begins with the passage of the federal Flood Control Act in 1936 and ends with completion of the LACDA project in the 1960s.

The LACDA project, carried out by the USACE and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), transformed the LAR into a concrete waterway. When fully constructed, the LACDA Project included five major flood control dams, 205 miles of concrete channel, 90 miles of leveed channel, and 22 debris basins (USACE 2019:15)."The combined LACDA Project remains the largest public works project the Corps has ever undertaken west of the Mississippi and the LAR channel is a major lynchpin in its design" (USACE 2019:16). A more recent study completed for the Sepulveda Dam Flood Control Basin in 2021 found that the end of the period of significance should be extended to 1967 in consideration of the fact that this was the year when LACDA projects reached 99 percent completion (Kremkau et al. 2021).

Given the findings of these more recent studies concerning LACDA infrastructure constructed between 1936 and 1967, it appears that the historical significance of Little Dalton Wash requires reevaluation. While evaluation of the entire LACFCD system is far outside the scope of this project, it appears that the greater LACDA project system of infrastructure could be a historic district that is significant under Criterion A for its important influence on the development of the Los Angeles region. The LACDA project as a whole does not appear eligible under Criterion C, as the role of design “prototype” appears to be most importantly associated with the LAR Channel itself. It is within this context that Little Dalton Wash is re-examined.

2.2.2 Historical Newspaper Search
South Environmental reviewed all available newspapers covering the City of Glendora and surrounding areas in an effort to understand the development history of the project APE and the surrounding areas. Any information obtained from these sources were used in the development of the Cultural Context (Section 3).

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
17 November 2023

2.2.3 Glendora Historical Society
South Environmental contacted the Glendora Historical Society on April 10, 2023 in attempt to obtain information about Finkbiner Park. Multiple follow-up attempts were made, but to date no response has been received.

2.2.4 Glendora Public Library
South Environmental contacted the Glendora Public Library on April 10, 2023. A response was received on April 18, 2023 from Library Technician Cynthia Nuño who provided links to several articles that were used to prepare the Cultural Context of this report.

2.2.5 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn Maps were available for Glendora for 1910, 1928, and 1931. In 1910, the Little Dalton Wash cuts through the future park land and the middle of City blocks, with a few small buildings nearby. The right-of-way for the Pacific Electric Railway is labeled near the top of the future baseball diamond section of the park and described as being 80 feet wide. The 1928 map shows that the lots around the Wash have been subdivided further, with more single-family houses filling-in the land. The Wash appears more defined. The land of the park is labeled “ball park” and there is one small building labeled “STGE” to the north of the Wash on the edge of North Wabash Street, and another near the southwest corner of the park. The Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way is still labeled. There are no changes in or around the park area in the updated 1931 map (ProQuest 2023).

2.2.6 Historical Maps and Aerial Photography
South Environmental reviewed all available historic topographic maps and aerial imagery to understand the development history of the project APE. Historic topographic maps of the project APE were available from USGS topoView for various years for Glendora (1894, 1897, 1898, 1901, 1904, 1925, 1927, 1933, 1939, 1953, 1966, 1995, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021) (USGS 2023). Historic aerial photographs of the APE were available from Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC (NETR) for the years 1948, 1953, 1964, 1965, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (NETR 2023) and from the University of California, Santa Barbara, (UCSB) FrameFinder Maps for the years 1928, 1933, 1934, 1936, and 1949 (USCB 2023).

The earliest topographic map from 1894 shows Glendora as a small town with a road grid and several buildings dotted throughout the landscape, both in the town and the northern foothills. The Santa Fe Railroad is marked as passing through the southern portion of the town. The Little Dalton Canyon and the Big Dalton Canyon are labeled in the mountains to the northeast, and converge near the eastern foothills, then follow the line of the present-day Big Dalton Wash, which is not officially labeled. The town remains relatively unchanged until 1925 when there are more streets and buildings. The Pacific Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
18 November 2023
Electric Railway is marked coming from the west and terminates on the east side of the City, where it intersects with the Little Dalton Wash, at present-day Finkbiner Park. The Little Dalton Wash is clearly marked, coming down through the mountains, and cutting directly west through the middle of the town (NETR 2023; UCSB 2023).

Aerial imagery of the early twentieth century shows that most of the land outside of the downtown area was being used for agricultural purposes, specifically orchards. The land of the future Finkbiner Park (Park) was being utilized as an orchard with a few small residences and one larger building at the south end that resembled a barn. The Little Dalton Wash (Wash) passed through the southern portion of the park, and the Pacific Light Rail line terminated at the intersection point with the Wash. The areas of the current baseball fields were undeveloped at this time. Aside from a slow infill of additional commercial and residence developments, the area remained unchanged until the 1940s and 1950s, when the town rapidly transformed from agricultural use to housing developments. By 1949, an orchard and several residences occupied the north side of the present-day Park, but the south side no longer contained any agricultural buildings, and instead consisted of undeveloped land with some mature trees, a single baseball diamond, and an oval shaped recreational area. The 1949 image also shows that the Pacific Light Rail line no longer extended all the way to the Park, but instead terminated at the corner of the park where North Minnesota Avenue reaches its southern end point. The 1953 topographic map is the first year that the project site is formally marked as a “park.” The map marks the Pacific Light Rail ending a few blocks east at Pennsylvania Avenue. In 1953 aerial imagery, the biggest change is the construction of three new buildings on the southern portion of the site. One is below the Wash and is the American Legion Building on North Cullen Avenue, and the two others were a smaller building north of the Wash, the Scout Hut, and an even smaller shed-like building just to the west of the oval-shaped surface that is no longer extant. Just to the east of where North Minnesota Avenue terminates in the park, a square outline in the field was present, likely an early iteration of the present-day tennis courts (NETR 2023; UCSB 2023).

By the mid-1960s, the north end of the orchard along East Bennet Avenue is entirely filled with single family homes and some large oak trees. Just north of the tennis courts is a U-shaped apartment complex with a courtyard that is still extant. Another building, the Youth Center, was constructed south of the Wash along East Dalton Avenue, and a third and fourth north of the Wash, near North Cullen Avenue, which appeared to be a single-family home and detached garage on the future site of the Liberty House. Overall, the entire Park is clearly defined with paved walkways connecting sections of the park to each other. The Wash is also more defined, appearing to have been graded and lined with a concrete bottom and walls, similar to its present appearance (NETR 2023; UCSB 2023).

The major changes in the 1970s are some additional paving to the west of the tennis courts near the present-day parking lot, construction of a small building (current Comfort Station) to the south of the tennis courts, and what appears to be paving over the area of the present-day playground. The Youth Center along the south side of park facing East Dalton Avenue received a rear addition and had the small field directly to the west of it be replaced with the present-day volleyball court. In the 1980s, Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
19 November 2023
more pathways were installed in the north side of the park, a bridge was added over the Wash near the eastern edge of the park, the central pavilion picnic area was constructed, and three baseball diamonds were added to the southwestern corner (NETR 2023; UCSB 2023).

By the 1990s, the oak trees have matured to a point where they obscured much of the aerial views of Park on the northeastern side. Two more buildings appear to be constructed within the decade; the bandshell and a rear addition to the American Legion building. Another pedestrian bridge is added to the Wash that connects the south side of the park to East Dalton Avenue. In 2000, the skate park was constructed. The Park remains relatively unchanged until 2014, when the canopy over the picnic pavilion area is installed. By 2018, the Park is similar to its current appearance (NETR 2023; UCSB 2023).

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
20 November 2023
3 Historic Context

3.1 City of Glendora
The early establishment of the present-day Glendora occurred during the Mexican Period when land grants were dispersed and new ranchos created. In 1841, Mexican governor Juan Alvarado awarded Rancho El Susa to Luis Arenas and Rancho Azusa de Duarte to Andres Duarte, both located in the future Los Angeles County (County) in the Glendora area. Three years later, Arenas sold the western one-third of Rancho San Hose to Henry Dalton, an Englishman and merchant. Dalton also acquired the San Jose Addition, and Rancho Azusa in 1844 and renamed his lands Rancho Azusa de Dalton (Caughey 1977; Dallas 1995; Lewis Publishing Co. 1889; Zerneke 2009). Dalton owned the property until the end of the Mexican Period, which concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican American War and ceding the rancho land to the United States government. After the signing of the treaty, Dalton lost most of his assets and lived the rest of his life in poverty (City of Glendora 1999; Lewis Publishing Co. 1889; Waugh 2003).

In the 1860s, Dalton’s prior land was partitioned and sold off. Four homesteads were established along the foothills that belonged to John Gassaway, Coleman Barnes, Leonidas Barnes, and John Harrar. In 1874, two men named William Bryant Cullen and John Bender, prior Confederate soldiers who came from Memphis, Tennessee, homesteaded an additional 160 acres within the area, becoming the first official permanent settlers of the future Glendora Township. Bender built his home on present day Rainbow Drive, and it was the first home constructed in Glendora. He named his family home “Springfield Ranch,” which is still extant today in the northwestern part of the City. Many other homesteading families began to take residence in the area, with their land producing wheat, flax, barley, caster beans, fruit trees, and grapes. Most of these crops were sold in markets in San Bernadino and Los Angeles, which at the time were both approximately a two-day wagon ride away. As people began to settle in the area, various community buildings began to appear, including shops, a blacksmith, churches, and small residences. A schoolhouse opened on the Dalton homestead and was named the LaFetra School (City of Glendora 1999; Landers 2001; Price 2008).

The area at this time became known as Alosta but remained unincorporated. In 1885, a wealthy coal mining man from Chicago named George Dexter Whitcomb moved to the area. He bought two hundred acres at $40 an acre which would eventually become the new town center. He named the town Glendora, devised from a combination of George Whitcomb’s wife’s name, Leadora, and the view of a mountain glen seen from the back of their home. Whitcomb went on to form the Glendora Land Company with two associates, John Cook, who bought land and water rights, and Merrick Reynolds, who purchased a substantial amount of land. Under the direction of the Glendora Land Company, the land in the center of town began to be cleared and plotted with streets in a grid pattern. Whitcomb named the north-south streets after places that were important to him, and east-west streets after family members (City of Glendora 1999).

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
21 November 2023
In the late nineteenth century, Glendora experienced major growth as it continued to expand in population and new development. The first business built in town was a real estate office that handled the large quantity of land transactions occurring at the time. North Vista Bonita Avenue became the first business district of Glendora, with other businesses consisting of grocery, drug, and hardware stores (City of Glendora 1999).

On May 31, 1885, the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company’s new train from Pasadena to San Bernardino made its first stop at the Glendora Station. The original station was a simple boxcar, but by 1888, a Victorian style station opened. This station was demolished in the 1950s. The railroad played an important role in the development of Glendora, particularly for the citrus industry (Landers 2001; Price 2008, 2012). The early years of the new century brought even further advances. In 1902, telephone services came to Glendora and the first newspaper was founded one year later, named the Glendora Gleaner. In 1907, the Pacific Electric Railway came to Glendora and connected the town to several other areas in Southern California including Pomona, Glendale, Newport Beach, Burbank, Van Nuys, and more (Burns 2023). A two-story hotel called the Bellevue was constructed by the Glendora Land Company on Meda Avenue between Michigan and Vista Bonita Avenues. This accommodated the influx of people traveling from the east who needed a temporary residence while constructing new homes. This hotel would later be demolished in the 1930s after a fire. Over time, Glendora’s business center gravitated to the west, and several businesses were relocated to Michigan Avenue near Bennet and Meda avenues. Other structures erected or relocated were a blacksmith shop, the First National Bank, and a business block known as the Chance Building (City of Glendora 1999).

The City of Glendora (City) was officially incorporated on November 13, 1911, and the first City Hall was erected at 314 North Michigan Avenue in 1913. This building also housed the fire department, post office, police department and jail. The building is extant today and serves as the Glendora Historical Society Museum (City of Glendora 1999). By 1915, the Glendora Water Company was purchased by the City. In 1921, Glendora opened an “auto camp” along Michigan Avenue that allowed more people to come to the area by providing roadside visitors free stoves, a covered kitchen, and running water, a much cheaper alternative to expensive hotels in the City. The result of the influx of people to the area brought about a building boom that culminated in 1922 with the construction of a larger City Hall on Foothill Boulevard, designed in the Italian Renaissance Revival Style (City of Glendora 1999; Price 2008).

From the beginning of its settlement, agriculture was a major industry in Glendora. Early ranches produced vegetables and fruit, with the most popular being apricots, peaches, grapes, strawberries, and prunes (City of Glendora 1999). By the turn of the twentieth century, the California citrus industry had made its way to Glendora and become established within the City. In 1923, the Glendora Fruit Exchange was created when the Glendora Citrus Association and Glendora Heights Orange and Lemon Growers Association joined forces to build their own packing house. This was a popular practice at the time to keep production, manufacturing, and shipping of citrus fruits in-house. Glendora went on to produce over one million boxes of fruit per year and established many packing houses throughout the Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
22 November 2023
City to meet those demands. The Glendora Mutual Orange Association marketed under the AzusaCovina-Glendora Fruit exchange, which shipped 1,117 cars of oranges and 30 cars of lemons in 1927.

At the industry’s peak in 1947, Glendora has more than 5,000 acres of orange and lemon groves, as well as six packing houses producing 78,000 tons of citrus per year. In the 1940s and 1950s, the citrus industry began its decline due to a tree disease that destroyed many of the crops, combined with the rising costs of labor and water (LAT 1987; Landers 2001; LAT 1927).

During World War II, Glendora hosted a Civilian Public Service Camp located in Big Dalton Canyon.

This Camp hosted conscientious objectors. Camp attendees had to pay a fine worked as medical study subjects or worked on civilian infrastructure projects to avoid being drafted by the Selective Service Act. Sometimes family members or religious sponsors would pay the fine for the individual. This was the only way to avoid reporting to the draft without being subjected to imprisonment in punishment camps. At the Camp in Glendora, the men were not treated well or paid for their work. In 1946, the objectors led a series of strikes in response to two other workers being sent to a punishment camp without any official legal proceedings. The strikes were also fueled by a lack of paid accident compensation and medical care for the workers who were physically abused by supervisors. These strikes began in Glendora and then spread around the nation at other camps. Despite the end of World War II in 1945, the Camp held the men until December of 1946 (Glendora Strikers 1946; LAT 1941; SBCS 1946).

At the end of the war, veterans returned to the area with the hopes of buying a home and starting a family. Nearby areas of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, and Temple City began to see significant increases in property values, making developers consider Glendora as a more cost-effective location for new home construction. By 1953, residential subdivisions began to appear north of Glendora’s central downtown. To the north of East Leodora Avenue, along North Glendora Avenue, a residential subdivision replaced the orchards and fields. By the 1960s, the developments stretched north past Sierra Madre Avenue. Between 1965 and 1975, the town extended further west approaching the neighboring town of Azusa, further replacing agricultural fields with more post-war housing. By the late 1970s, most of the agricultural land in the northern foothills was gone. Between 2005 and 2009 the last of the remaining agricultural land between Glendora and Azusa was fully filled in north of the 210 freeway, east of North Pasadena Avenue in Azusa, and west of North Yucca Ridge Road in Glendora (NETR 2023).

3.2 The Role of Flood Control in Glendora
The main wash channels that run through the City of Glendora are the Big Dalton Wash and Little Dalton Wash. Both washes travel from the foothills in northeastern Glendora to the southwest, converging with the San Dimas Wash from the east to form the collective Big Dalton Wash. The Big Dalton Wash continues further southwest where it intersects the Walnut Creek Channel just west of West Covina. This becomes the Walnut Creek soft bottom channel, which feeds into the San Gabriel Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
23 November 2023
River just a couple miles west. The San Gabriel River eventually empties into the Pacific Ocean in Long Beach (Gumprecht 2001).

In the early days of Glendora, the Big and Little Dalton Wash served as natural water thoroughfares through the town from the mountains and were used by farmers to irrigate their fields. As the town developed with more buildings and infrastructure, the area needed protection from flooding during big storms. Before the formation of a formal district, the washes were relatively unmanaged and caused large amounts of damage (Gumprecht 2001).

Prior to the flood that impacted Los Angeles County in 1914, little had been done to develop a comprehensive approach to flood control within the Los Angeles basin. Although the land used for agricultural purposes occasionally flooded, this was generally tolerated by farmers. However, the 1914 flood destroyed 35 bridges, including one of the main thoroughfare bridges in Glendora, and washed out more than 100 roads (Gumprecht 2001). The flood caused over $10 million worth of structural damage and captured the attention of residents more seriously for the first time. Comprehensive flood control improvements were recognized as necessary. On June 12, 1915, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) was created by an Act of the California legislature and was given the responsibility for flood control and water conservation in the Los Angeles County Area (Hedger and Emery 1975). LACFCD’s boundaries encompassed an area of 2,760 square miles. To accomplish both flood control and water conservation, the District was empowered to have perpetual succession, purchase and dispose of property, acquire property through eminent domain, construct and maintain public works, issue bonds, borrow money, and levy taxes (Van Wormer 1985).

Once the district was formed, debate ensued regarding the best method to address the flood risk.

On one side, the engineers stated that efforts should be focused on impounding water in the mountains while the opposition argued that money and effort would be better spent on modifying and fortifying the river channels (Gumprecht 2001) Flooding in January 1916 forced the issue to resolution and by January 1917 LACFCD adopted its first comprehensive plan for flood control, which was revised and expanded several times over the ensuing years. The flooding of 1916 also led to the establishment of the Glendora Flood Control Association with a goal of constructing check dams in the Big and Little Dalton canyons to help with water conservation and flood control, based on success seen in other areas utilizing this program (Los Angeles Evening Express 1916).

Between 1918 and 1924, LACFCD constructed three concrete arched gravity dams: Devil’s Gate; San Dimas Canyon Dam; and a reservoir at Live Oak Canyon, as well as over 3,800 check dams in 66 different canyons (Van Wormer 1985). From 1928-1929, the Big Dalton Dam, located northeast of Glendora, was also constructed (Exhibit 1) (Monrovia Daily News 1926).

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
24 November 2023
Exhibit 1. Big Dalton Dam (Los Angeles County Library 1928) By the 1930s, the public was less supportive of the LACFCD efforts and voted down bond issues that would have given the LACFCD more money for projects. In August 1933, LACFCD also made an appeal for funds from the federal government, which was denied (Van Wormer 1985). After a heavy rain in 1934 that killed 49 people and destroyed just under 200 homes, the district reached out to the federal government for emergency assistance and requested 19.3 million under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, a Depression-era recovery program established by Congress. After this, LACFCD put forth their refined and expanded comprehensive plan that included 64 separate projects and cost just under $1 billion (Gumprecht 2001).

In July of 1935, Congress approved nearly $14 million in Works Progress Administration (WPA) funds for the 14 most pressing projects in the LACFCD plan. In 1936, through the passage of the Flood Control Act, Congress expanded the duties of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from just providing emergency relief to helping establish permanent flood control projects (Turhollow 1975).

In 1937, Chief Engineer C.H. Howell presented a ten-year flood control program to the County Board of Supervisors. Work for Glendora included a proposed retarding basin at the Little Dalton and Big Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
25 November 2023
Dalton Washes in Glendora. This comprehensive plan was estimated to cost $70 million (Turhollow 1975).

After coming up with project reports to address some of the major issues in the Los Angeles area, Congress approved the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) Project in 1941. In total, the plans developed included the construction of five major flood control dams, 205 miles of concrete channels, 90 miles of leveed channels and 22 debris basins (Turhollow 1975).

While plans for work on the Big and Little Dalton Wash were proposed as a part of improvements to the San Gabriel River as tributaries, major improvements to Glendora did not come until the midcentury when the washes were officially channelized (Monrovia Daily News-Post June 1940). In the 1930s and 1940s, the Washes underwent projects that reconstructed embankments, installed wire fencing, and utilized concrete conduits, but this was the extent of the earlier work (Monrovia Daily News-Post July 1940). It was not until the 1950s when County supervisors began condemnation proceedings to acquire parcels of land needed for officially establishing the right-of-way for both Washes. Under the LACFCD’s plans, the work was to begin downstream with the Walnut Creek inlet and continue upstream though the Walnut Creek Channel to the Big Dalton Wash, and then through the junction of the Big and Little Dalton Washes and the San Dimas Wash. Work on the Washes included creating rectangular reinforced concrete-lined channels ranging from 10 to 60 feet wide and from 8 to 14 feet deep (The Pomona Progress Bulletin 1955).

In 1958, project bids were opened for the construction of the Harrow Debris Basin and Channel and the Harrow Canyon storm drain in Glendora. This project, as a part of Glendora’s flood control network, scheduled construction for a debris basin, compacted earth filled dam, spillway and outlet works, reinforced concrete pipe conduit, and fencing and supportive fixtures (Covina Argus 1958).Upon channelization completion in the 1960s, the entire system from the canyons above Glendora and San Dimas to the San Gabriel River functioned much more efficiently and prevented future major flooding events (Covina Argus 1958).

The USACE subsequently led additional flood-control efforts on watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers which were developed as part of the LACDA. By 1967, LACDA floodcontrol projects were almost entirely complete (Exhibit 2), (Turhollow 1975:319).

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
26 November 2023
Exhibit 2. Map showing the extent of the LACDA Project (USACE 1991)

3.3 Project Site Historic Context

3.3.1 Development of the Little Dalton Wash
The Little Dalton Wash (Wash) originates from the foothills of the mountains to the northeast of Glendora, in Little Dalton Canyon. It is a natural flowing wash that flows southwest and then turns directly west across the City towards the neighboring City of Azusa and officially terminates at the San Gabriel River. While the Wash is not officially marked on the Glendora topographic map until 1925, it is first mentioned in local newspapers in 1907 when work began on a bridge that crossed the Wash along Azusa Avenue in Azusa (LAT 1907). It is also mentioned in 1909 when one of the first bridges in Glendora along Michigan Avenue went out during a large storm (LAT 1909). Also in 1909, a concrete bridge was constructed across the Wash in Azusa on Cerritos Street for $5,000 (Los Angeles Harold 1909). In 1910, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County announced a notice of intention to form a storm water district that would include use of the Wash for drainage, and to protect towns people from its flooding during large rainstorms (Covina Argus 1910). In 1914, a bad storm flooded out the Wash, causing 10 feet deep trenches to be cut out on Broadway and over saturating several orchards. In addition to larger storms, many citrus growers were regularly concerned about the Wash’s Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
27 November 2023
inability to prevent water from flooding their fields. Despite the damage that the unregulated Little Dalton Washed caused to the town, a plan to manage it was not put forward until the 1930s (Covina Argus 1935).

In 1930, a new bridge was constructed across the Wash on Citrus Avenue (Covina Argus 1930). In 1934, another surge of big storms caused numerous bridge wash outs and damage along the properties adjacent to the Wash (Covina Argus 1934). Also in 1934, there was a 10-cent increase to the local flood control district tax to begin planning repairs and improvements to storm and flood management (Monrovia News-Post 1934). The County established flood control stations throughout the region. A patrol station was constructed at 5th street in Azusa along the Wash. In 1935, County supervisors approved an improvement project that would cover a portion of the Wash between Glendora and Azusa in a concrete conduit, and pave Foothill Boulevard. It would involve 11,100 cubic yards of excavation, placement of 3,880 cubic yards of concrete and construction of almost 11,000 feet of pipeline and wire fencing (The Pomona Progress Bulletin 1935). However, just a few months later, the project was postponed. The work was reinstated in 1937 as a part of a larger project consisting of an open concrete conduit starting at the mouth of the Little Dalton Canyon and extending seven miles through Glendora towards Azusa. The Wash was to be constructed approximately 10 to 30 feet wide with a depth of seven feet and a cost of $430,000. This project required procuring easements on 26 different parcels throughout the town (LAT 1959).

In 1949, a condemnation of 13 parcels in Azusa was ordered to make way for a realignment and improvement of the Wash. This project straightened out the Wash between Azusa Avenue and a point north of Bonita Avenue. In the 1950s, the Wash was still experiencing issues with flooding, so the City engineer conducted a study to determine the possibility of cutting channels into the bank of the Wash.

In 1958, the LACFCD proposed to realign the Wash to a covered flood control channel along the Old Pacific Electric right-of-way. Although this plan was never realized, in 1959, an agreement was reached for the construction of a covered channel segment in the downtown area of Glendora. Over time, as other flood water infrastructure was installed in Glendora, the Wash was used as a convergence point for channels to express water from the area, such as the Harrow Debris Basin and Channel. In 1959, a construction project for the Big Dalton Wash began which also included improvements to the Little Dalton Wash and its debris basin at the north end. That same year, 8.5 acres of land was condemned in Azusa to construct a further extension of the Wash on the southern side of the City (LAT 1959).

In 1960, the Wash underwent a large, two-phase, $2.5 million project overseen by the USACE. The project overhauled the main portion of the Wash running through Glendora. The project required acquisition of several parcels of the Wash right-of-way by the County. The overall project improved the existing earth channel of pipe and wire revetment running north of and through the City to a junction with the Big Dalton Wash near Azusa Avenue. The original channel was considered to be below capacity for the amount of runoff it needed to accommodate. The new channel followed the same route, with some minor deviations, and was constructed of open reinforced concrete. It was close to 6 miles in length with a depth of 8 to 12 feet, and a width of 10 to 20 feet. A permanent inlet Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
28 November 2023
structure at the channel was constructed at Lorraine Avenue (LAT 1960). Several buildings and streets throughout the City were modified or demolished as a part of the project. At the completion of the project, the Wash was turned over from the USACE to the local Flood Control District for operation and maintenance. By the end of 1960, five bridges were constructed over the Wash at Ben Lomond Avenue, Gladstone Street, Lark Ellen Avenue, Leadora Avenue, and Loraine Avenue. By January 1961, Little Dalton Wash was completed as three segments: Loraine Ave. to Cullen Ave., Cullen Ave. to 5th St., and 5th St. to Big Dalton Wash (USACE 1991).

In 1966, the bridge over Gladstone Street was widened to accommodate four lanes of traffic (LAT 1966). In 1963, the County Board of Supervisors approved the installation of protective chain-link fencing along the Wash in Glendora and Azusa. The fence covered nearly six miles of length and stood at five feet tall (LAT 1963).

In the 1970s, several other projects were completed related to the Wash. In 1972, a pedestrian bridge was built over the Wash in Glendora’s shopping district. In 1973, a $77,000 contract was awarded to construct a road in the basin of the Wash located 400 feet west of Barranca Avenue and Heber Street.

Another road was constructed in the Halls Canyon Channel (LAT 1973). A ramp down into the Wash was constructed on the south side west of Barranca Avenue (Daily News-Post 1973). In 1975, plans called for the installation of a concrete cover over the Wash in the area of downtown Glendora, covering two blocks of the 20-foot-wide channel from Vista Bonita Avenue to Vermont Avenue. This allowed more development and use of the land downtown, which was highly desired by merchants and townspeople (LAT 1975).

3.3.2 Development of Finkbiner Park
By the 1930s in the United States, parks were seen as a fundamental element of urban life. As people began to develop neighborhoods, they began to prioritize recreation areas, leading to an increase in park facilities. During and after the Great Depression, leisure time increased as people retired earlier and lived longer. City infrastructure was also improving, and parks became an area to facilitate “useful” activities, such as first aid classes, physical fitness programs, and club gathering points (Cranz 1982).

The City Beautiful Movement, a movement popular from the 1890s through the 1920s, sparked an interest in urban planning focusing on making more livable cities which combined design with social and civic issues. It not only improved a city’s overall appearance, but incorporated civic centers, parks, and grand boulevards into design considerations. The movement fell out of popularity by World War I, but cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. serve as examples of transformed cities with integration of automobile networks with outdoor spaces (Blumberg 2019).

The County of Los Angeles Park and Recreation system began with the establishment of the County Board of Forestry in 1911. Their primary responsibility was planting roadside trees and plants. It was succeeded by the Office of County Forester by 1920, and by 1922, began putting aside land to develop parks, such as Big Pine Recreation Camp. By 1929, the Department of Recreation, Camps, and Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
29 November 2023
Playgrounds was established and focused on the creation and improvement of park sites in the mountainous and lowland areas of the County. Federal funds provided through the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Emergency Conservation Act program also made significant development of park, beach, and recreation areas possible during the Great Depression By 1944, the department overseeing parks and recreation areas became the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation. As of 2016, the County Department owns 180 parks which includes natural areas, wildlife sanctuaries, arboreta and botanic gardens, and local, community, and regional parks; in addition to cultural venues (County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation n.d.; Gruendyke 1946; County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation 2023).

Finkbiner Park (Park) was established in 1949 and was originally named Recreation Park. Although it was developed after the establishment of the County of Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department and the City Beautiful Movement, it was developed with the same civic focused ideals. Its development aligned with both beautifying the City and making it more livable. As the City began to shift from an agricultural to residential focus, the Park provided dedicated space for locals to gather and participate in recreational activities. The Park is the City’s oldest park and was the only one in existence for several years (Reyes 2022). The land the Park now occupies was part of a larger strip of land donated to Henry Huntington and the Pacific Electric Railway to encourage the extension of the railroad from Monrovia to Glendora. During the early twentieth century, the property was used to store Red Rail line cars. In these early years, the only recreational component on the site was a softball field diamond that the Railroad permitted the City to construct and use (Reyes 2022). Eventually, the City purchased the land from the Southern Pacific Railroad, the successor to Pacific Electric Railway (Glendora Historical Society 2020).

The Glendora Chamber of Commerce helped foster a general community interest in developing the land into a dedicated park and recreation center and raised funds to make this possible. During the 1940s, the U.S. found itself involved in World War II, fostering a new sense of community awareness in small communities like Glendora, which was still a town of only 3,000 people. Plans for the Park sparked enough interest that it became the first major town project to be undertaken during the decade. The City reclaimed and repurchased the land from the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way for $6,000. The Park’s development was slow in these early years with the onset of World War II. However, local volunteers, such as Fred Long, City Clerk of Glendora, donated time and services by planting many of the oak trees seen in the Park today. In the following years, the City decided to close off Minnesota Avenue and enlarge the Park. This included establishing a fund to create a roller-skating area on the newly expanded land. Mrs. Eugene Underhill funded the construction of a water line for the Park’s first drinking fountain, and Charles Gordon fundraised for the installation of lighting on the baseball field (The Glendoran 2003).

In 1950, the Frank J. Gard family made a generous donation that led to the construction of the American Legion Building. That same year, Rolfe Bidwell, the City’s first lawyer donated funds to construct the Rotary Scout Hut, and the La Fetra Family donated money to build the tennis courts. Also Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
30 November 2023
in the early 1950s, Andy Fay and Bill Siebert brought Little League Baseball to the Park, starting a small local league. Norma Caranda, a local contractor, built the original dugouts which were present on site for several years (The Glendoran 2003).

In the 1960s, Harriet Geyer and the Glendora Coordinating Council raised money to construct the Youth Center, which was later renovated in the 1980s with Federal grant funds. In 1966, the Frank J.

Gard Post of the American Legion donated the Legion Memorial Building to the City. The Women’s Auxiliary of the same post donated funds to purchase the playground equipment. The Legion Memorial Building was also remodeled in the 1980s using Federal grant funds (The Glendoran 2003).

In 1978, the City expanded the size of the Park by purchasing an additional three acres to the northeast, known today as West Oaks Grove, which was owned by the West Family. This grove was named the West Oaks Grove after former Glendora Mayor Mill West and contained 83 oak trees. The City also raised money in the 1970s to construct a snack stand and restroom facility adjacent to the main baseball diamond (The Glendoran 2003; Glendora Historic Preservation Committee. n.d).

On September 6, 1980, the name of the Park was officially changed from Recreation Park to Joe M.

Finkbiner Municipal Park, in honor of Joe M. Finkbiner, Mayor of Glendora who served for 16 years (1964-1980) alongside an additional four years as a City Council member (1960-1964) (LAT 1980). In 1982, the Community Services Commission, under Chairman Dee Hupp, formed a committee to begin discussing constructing a bandshell. The committee was successful and a bandshell was constructed near the West Oaks Grove, funded by community member donations to house summer concerts. The effort was led by Larry Glenn, who served three terms as Mayor of Glendora and for whom the bandshell is named in honor of. The Scout Hut was found to be in deteriorating condition in the late 1980s, and a campaign led by the Glendora Rotary Club was formed to address these concerns (The Glendoran 2003).

In 1990, the old Scout Hut was razed, and a new building project was led by contractor and Rotarian, Keith Van Vilet. The building was constructed by Forestwood Construction and designed by Jackson K.

Walters. In 1999, a new $154,000 skatepark was funded and opened in 2000 (Reyes 2022; Glendora Historical Society 2020; The Glendoran 2003).

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
31 November 2023
4 Identified Resources
Two built environment resources over 50 years old were identified within the project APE: Finkbiner Park (1949) and the Little Dalton Wash (1961). A detailed description of each resource is provided below.

4.1 Finkbiner Park
The table below provides a photograph (column 1) and description (column 2) of each component of the Park as identified on Figure 4 with additional details regarding the accessory buildings and structures.
1 – Athletic Fields (c.1949-c.1971)
Overview of baseball fields, facing west.

Overview of concessions and restroom building, facing
northeast.

The current athletic field area includes four
baseball fields. The fields are arranged in four
corners of an open field area. Each field
contains a chain link fence, two dugouts, and
sets of metal bleachers.

The southwest corner field also has a small
concessions and restrooms building
constructed out of brick with a flat roof and
three concessions windows.

Alterations:
• Concessions and Restrooms
constructed (1971)
• Two additional fields constructed
(1985)
• One additional constructed (1997)
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
32 November 2023
2 - Basketball Court (c.1949)
Overview of basketball court, facing south.

The basketball court is concrete with green
and red painted court lines and two hoops.

Alterations:
• Modernized and updated (new court
painted) (2012)
3 – Tennis Courts (c.1953)
Overview of tennis courts, facing west.

The tennis court area contains two courts
constructed out of a concrete slab and
painted court lines. There is one net at the
center of each court. A chain link fence
surrounds the courts.

Alterations:
• Grass courts replaced with concrete
courts (circa 1985)
4 – Comfort Station (c.1978)
Overview of restroom building, facing east.

The Comfort Station is one-story in height. It
is constructed out of brick and has a low-pitch
gable roof with deep overhangs and exposed
wood rafter tails. The north elevation has two
recessed entryways leading to the restrooms.

The west elevation has a set of unglazed
double doors leading to a storage area. The
east elevation has one unglazed door. The
south elevation has one set of small metal
doors.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
33 November 2023
5 – Skate Park (c.2000)
Overview of skate park, facing south.

The Skate Park is constructed out of concrete
with various ramps, rails, and other small
metal and concrete features. The area is
surrounded by a chain link fence.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
6 - Larry R. Glenn Memorial Bandshell (2005)
Overview of bandshell facing southwest.

This standalone bandshell is constructed out
of rough-faced CMUs. It has a recessed stage
area with a tiered ceiling clad in stucco. At the
rear of the stage area is a roll-up metal door.

On either side of the stage are two large
pillars. The stage is accessed from the
southeast by a set of stairs and from the
northwest by a handicap accessible ramp.

There are multiple plagues attached to the
bandshell that have various information about
the bandshell and its construction. It was
designed by Norman R. Nichols, AIA and
constructed by Morillo Construction
Company.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
7 – Shade Canopy (c.2014)
Overview of shade canopy, facing west.

The current shade canopy features a metal
support structure with a central metal pier
with eight cylindrical posts surrounding it. The
canopy is made of eight tension held
triangular shaped canvas sheets. A concrete
slab forms the base. Picnic tables are
clustered beneath the canopy.

Alterations:

In 1980, the original concrete pad for a patio
area was located at the same location as the
canopy. This concrete pad was replaced with
the current pad and canopy in 2014.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
34 November 2023
8 - Rotary Scout Hut (1990)
Overview of Rotary Scout Hut building, facing
northeast.

This one-story building is constructed out of
brick with a CMU foundation and has a
medium-pitched cross gabled roof with the
gables clad in wooden board and batten
siding. The roof has exposed wooden rafter
tails. Aluminum windows are present
throughout and appear to be original to the
building. The main entry door is sheltered by
the roof gable and this area also contains a
plaque. To the south of the main entry door is
a small area enclosed with CMU and two
metal gates that has two additional entry
doors. The rear elevation has two exit doors.

The building was designed by Jackson K.

Walters and constructed by Forestwood
Construction.

Alterations:

The Rotary Scout Hut was originally
constructed in 1953 but was demolished due
to deteriorating condition and reconstructed
in 1990.
9 - Youth Center (1965)
Overview of the Youth Center, facing northeast.

This building is one-story in height and clad in
painted brick veneer. It features multiple
rooflines including a flat roof in the rear and
hipped roof with a gabled clerestory cap over
the main body of the house. The hipped roof
section of the building has overhanging eaves
with exposed wood rafter tails. Fenestration
consists of nearly floor-to-ceiling aluminum
windows, and two fixed replacement vinyl
windows. The main entry on the south
elevation contains glass and metal
replacement double-entry doors. The
remaining elevations feature simple, unglazed
entry doors. The main entry area also has
planters constructed of the same brick as the
building.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
35 November 2023
10 – West Oaks Grove (1978)
Overview of West Oaks Grove, facing west.

The West Oaks Grove features mature trees.

The ground in this section of the Park is
predominantly covered with mulch and has
concrete landscape edging in some areas.

Concrete pathways with metal lampposts and
picnic tables are located throughout the area.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
11 - American Legion Building, Post 475 (1966)
Overview of American Legion Building, facing
northwest.

The building is a one-story building
constructed out of CMU and painted brick
veneer. The building has multiple rooflines
with hipped and gabled sections. The roof
also features exposed wood rafter tails.

Windows throughout primarily consist of
metal sash and casements, with some
windows replaced with vinyl. The main (east)
elevation contains a recessed main entryway
with a set of metal double-doors with side
lights. The south elevation contains a brick
chimney. The rear elevation has an access
ramp, stairs, and metal double-doors. Directly
adjacent to the west elevation is a set of
batting cages.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
12 - Liberty House (2017)
Overview of Liberty House, facing northwest.

This is a one-story building with a very simple
rectangular floor plan with a small adjacent
restroom building of the same design. The
building contains a low-pitched metal gable
roof and stucco exterior cladding with faux
stone cladding on the lowest third of all
elevations. Vinyl windows are present
throughout the building as well as five sets of
vinyl double doors. The restroom building has
two unglazed access doors. The rear of the
building is enclosed with a chain link fence
and contains a concrete patio, canopy, and
grassy area.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
36 November 2023
Street Lights (c.1980)
Example of light post in West Oaks Grove section of the Park, facing north.

Ornamental street lights are located
throughout the Park, with the majority
concentrated around the West Oaks Grove
and Bandshell areas
The lights have fluted metal posts with acorn
globe lights. While their exact date of
construction is unknown, they were like
installed in circa 1980, when the walking paths
were established throughout the West Oaks
Grove.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
Hardscape Features (various dates)
Overview of Wall and Walkways in West Oaks Grove,
facing northwest.

Example of concrete Park bench, facing southeast.

Hardscape features around the Park include
concrete walkways, sidewalks, and benches.

There is also a wall that defines the northeast
corner of the Park. These features appear to
be modern and not of historic age.

Alterations:

None documented or observed
Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
37 November 2023
Commemorative Markers and Signage
(various dates)
Overview of Finkbiner Marker, facing southwest.

Overview of American Legion Statue, facing northwest.

Overview of “Glendora Recreation Park” marker,
facing northeast.

There are a variety of commemorative
markers and signage throughout the Park.

These elements vary in materials, size, and
function. Examples of these include the
Finkbiner Park signs placed at entry points to
the Park, markers with informational plaques
throughout the Park, and an American Legion
statue/monument. All of these elements
appear to be modern additions to the Park
and are not of historic age.

Alterations:

None documented or observed

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
39 November 2023

4.2 Little Dalton Wash
The segment of Little Dalton Wash (Wash) within the APE runs from the northeast to the southwest through the southern portion of Finkbiner Park. This section of the Wash is lined with concrete floor and walls and is bordered by chain link and black metal fencing. North Wabash Avenue, East Dalton Avenue, and North Cullen Avenue all cross over the Wash near the Park. Two additional pedestrian bridges cross over the Wash: one between East Dalton Avenue and the skate park, and the other to the north of the American Legion Building.

The Little Dalton Wash starts in the San Gabriel Mountains to the north of Glendora and terminates at the San Gabriel River after traveling through the cities of Glendora, Azuza and Irwindale. While most of the Wash is above ground, there are a few instances where it goes underground before it terminates at the San Gabriel River. While a complete survey of the entirety of the Wash was not completed as part of this effort, aerial photography review completed as part of this project indicates that the Wash is predominately concrete-lined and follows its original alignment (Exhibits 2-5).

Exhibit 3. Overview of Little Dalton Wash, facing southwest.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
40 November 2023
Exhibit 4. Overview of Little Dalton Wash, facing northeast.

Exhibit 5. Overview of Little Dalton Wash pedestrian crossing from East Dalton Avenue to Skatepark, facing southwest.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
41 November 2023
Exhibit 6. Overview of pedestrian crossing north of American Legion Building, facing southwest.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
42 November 2023
5 Significance Evaluations

5.1 Finkbiner Park

5.1.1 NRHP, CRHR, and City Designation Criteria
The following presents an evaluation of the Park in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City of Glendora designation criteria. Criteria discussions are combined whenever possible to avoid repetitive text.

NRHP Criterion A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

CRHR Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

City Criterion 1. The proposed preserved features exemplify or reflect special elements of historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic heritage.

The Park was established in 1949 as Recreation Park, comprised of a group of parcels put aside for leisure and recreational activities. It was Glendora’s first park, and its only park for several years following its establishment. The Park was constructed shortly after World War II when the City was transitioning from agricultural to residential development. While this occurred after the establishment of the County of Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department and the City Beautiful Movement, it was developed with the same civic focused ideals. The Park land was carved out in the middle of a residential area, and since 1949, additional buildings and facilities were added to support the continued use of the Park. The various building types and recreation areas on site fit the needs of local residents, and provide areas to play sports, host performances, serve as a gathering place for groups like Boy Scouts and Veterans, and feature large open greenspaces for people to enjoy leisure time and congregate close to their homes. Several of the buildings and facilities were constructed based upon the efforts of local councils or community members who raised or donated funds, demonstrating the community’s investment in the Park and its significance as an important public space in Glendora.

Furthermore, the theme of recreation continues at the Park today with recent fields for baseball and softball leagues, installation of a playground, and the construction of a skate park.

Due to the specific dedication of the land to be used as a Park during Glendora’s transition from agricultural to residential development, its progressive development over time, its importance as a public space and recreation area for the City, and its continued use by locals and maintenance by the City, the Park is an important feature of Glendora’s historical development and cultural heritage. While its significance does not rise to the level of significance required for NRHP and CRHR designation under Criterion A/1, the Park appears to be eligible at the local level under City Criterion 1.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
43 November 2023
NRHP Criterion B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

CRHR Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

City Criterion 2. The proposed preserved features are identified with persons or events significant in local state or national history.

To be found eligible under B/2 a property has to be directly tied to an important person and the place where that individual conducted or produced the work for which he or she is known. Prior to 1980, the Park was named Recreation Park. On September 6, 1980, the name of the Park was officially changed to Joe M. Finkbiner Municipal Park, in honor of Joe M. Finkbiner, Mayor of Glendora for 16 years from 1964-1980 and City Council Member from 1960-1964. Finkbiner is most well-known for his lengthy and influential political career in Glendora. However, the renaming of the Park is a symbolic gesture to acknowledge Finkbiner’s local accomplishments, and is not directly associated with Finkbiner’s work or productive life.

Archival research failed to indicate any other such direct association with individuals that are known to be historic figures at the national, state, or local level. While some of the buildings are associated with local citizens who led the efforts for their construction or aided in donating or raising funds, none of these individuals were found to be important historic figures. Therefore, the Park is not eligible under NRHP Criterion B, CRHR Criterion 2, or City Criterion 2.

NRHP Criterion C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

CRHR Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

City Criterion 3. The proposed features embody distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction or are valuable examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.

City Criterion 4. The proposed preserved features are representative of the notable work of a builder, designer or architect.

The Park was established in 1949 and currently contains over 12 different buildings, structures, and other features such as landscape, hardscape, streetlights and signage that were constructed between 1949 and 2017. Most of the buildings on site were constructed between 1949 and 1966, including the Tennis Courts (c. 1953), Basketball Court (c.1949), West Oaks Grove (1978), Concessions Stand (1971) at the baseball field, Youth Center (1965), and American Legion Building (1966). No evidence was found Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
44 November 2023
to suggest that the Park was planned and designed as a cohesive community park. It began in 1949 with a single baseball field. Over the next several decades, additional single buildings and recreation areas were constructed to support the continued use of the Park. Although most development occurred in the 1960s, there does not appear to have been a master plan of development for the Park.

Further, archival research did not reveal any association with a landscape architect or planner. The ongoing changes made to the park over time, has resulted in an overall lack of architectural and aesthetic cohesion.

While the buildings within the Park all share a general Mid-Century Modern architectural design aesthetic, they lack architectural merit both individually and as a group, and do not serve as a good representation of a type, period, or method of construction. Further, the buildings are not architecturally cohesive and several exhibit modifications including replaced windows. Finally, none of the identified architects and builders associated with the Park are notable or master architects.

Therefore, the Park is not eligible under NRHP Criterion C, CRHR Criterion 3, or City Criteria 3 and 4.

NRHP Criterion D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CRHR Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

There is no evidence that the Park has the potential to yield information important to national, state or local history. Therefore, it appears ineligible under NRHP Criterion C, CRHR Criterion 3, and City Criteria 3 and 4.

5.1.2 Integrity
Location: The Park retains integrity of location. It is situated in its original location in its original orientation.

Design: The Park lacks integrity of design. The Park was not master-planned or designed with a cohesive appearance and several individual buildings and features were added over the span of several decades with some modified since their original construction.

Setting: The Park retains integrity of setting. It was constructed following Word War II when Glendora was transitioning from an agricultural focus to single-family suburban homes, and it remains situated in a residential neighborhood.

Materials: The Park has diminished integrity of materials. Some buildings have window replacements, and some of the features, such as the tennis courts, have been remodeled over time.

Workmanship: The Park retains integrity of workmanship. Evidence of the original craftsmanship of the buildings, recreation areas, and landscape elements remain intact.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
45 November 2023
Feeling: The Park retains integrity of feeling. It still feels like a suburban park in a residential neighborhood.

Association: The Park retains integrity of association. Although the Park has been modified over the years with the addition of various buildings and structures, it still maintains its association as Glendora’s first park and as an important public space and recreation area for the community.

5.1.3 Statement of Significance
Finkbiner Park (Park) includes 12 buildings, structures, and landscape features, as well as various hardscapes features, lighting, and commemorative markers and signage that were evaluated as a single resource in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and City of Glendora designation criteria.

The Park was found eligible for local designation under City Criterion 1 as Glendora’s first park and an important feature of Glendora’s historical development and cultural heritage. Finkbiner Park retains its historic integrity and ability to convey important historical associations at the local level of significance.

The Park does not, however, appear to meet any NRHP or CRHR designation criteria.

The Park's identified period of significance is from 1949 to 1978. This period of significance captures the original development of the Park in 1949 and ends with the acquisition of the West Oaks Grove section of the Park in 1978. The acquisition of the West Oaks Grove section of the Park created the current park footprint.

While there are multiple buildings, structures, features, and recreational areas throughout the Park, these components were constructed at different times and lack architectural cohesion. Archival research also failed to indicate the use of a landscape designer or strategic park planning in the Park's conception. Rather, it appears that various elements of the park were constructed/modified as needed.

Therefore, none of the existing built environment within the Park contribute to its local historical significance. The character-defining features of Finkbiner Park are limited to its boundary/footprint and its function as a community park.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
46 November 2023

5.2 Little Dalton Wash

5.2.1 NRHP, CRHR, and City Designation Criteria
The following presents an evaluation of the Little Dalton Wash (Wash) in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and City of Glendora designation criteria. Criteria discussions are combined whenever possible to avoid repetitive text.

NRHP Criterion A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
CRHR Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

City Criterion 1. The proposed preserved features exemplify or reflect special elements of historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic heritage.

Little Dalton Wash was completed in January 1961 as part of the LACDA Project, which included the construction of five major flood control dams, 205 miles of concrete channels, 90 miles of leveed channels and 22 debris basins (Turhollow 1975). The LAR Channel was previously found eligible for the NRHP within the context of the LACDA Project without fully evaluating the LACFCD system as a whole (USACE 2019). By extension, it appears that the larger LACDA Project could be an historic district that is significant under Criterion A for its important influence on the development of the Los Angeles region with a period of significance of 1936-1967. However, the level of effort required to make a determination on the eligibility of the entire LACDA Project is beyond the scope of this project. Based on Little Dalton Wash's construction as part of the LACDA Project and its important contributions to flood control in Glendora/the greater Los Angeles region, the Wash appears eligible under NRHP Criterion A, CRHR Criterion 1, and City Criterion 1 as a contributor to the LACDA Project.

NRHP Criterion B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

CRHR Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

City Criterion 2. The proposed preserved features are identified with persons or events significant in local state or national history.

There is no evidence that Little Dalton Wash is associated with any person significant in national, state, or local history. Therefore, the Wash appears ineligible under NRHP Criterion B, CRHR Criterion 2, and City Criterion 2.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
47 November 2023
NRHP Criterion C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

City Criterion 4. The proposed preserved features are representative of the notable work of a builder, designer or architect.

Little Dalton Wash is a simple concrete box channel that does not embody any distinctive or important character-defining features representative of an architectural style. Nor does it appear to be an engineering “prototype,” as was the finding for the LAR Channel. Although Little Dalton Wash is representative of a common type of concrete channel constructed as part of the LACDA Project, it does not possess high artistic value, does not represent an important method of construction, and is not known to be the work of a master engineer. Therefore, the Wash appears ineligible under NRHP Criterion C, CRHR Criterion 3, and City Criteria 3 and 4.

NRHP Criterion D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CRHR Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

There is no evidence that Little Dalton Wash has the potential to yield information important to national, state or local history. Therefore, it appears ineligible under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4.

5.2.2 Integrity
Location: The Wash is located in the same location in which it was constructed/channelized and it retains integrity of location.

Design: The Wash maintains its original design as a simple concrete channel and retains integrity.

Although modifications have been made to the Wash since its original construction, these did not impact the integrity of the original design.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
48 November 2023
Setting: The Wash maintains its setting, which has greatly evolved throughout its period of significance as Glendora transitioned from an agricultural landscape to a residential and commercial City.

Materials: The Wash maintains integrity of materials as nearly all of its original materials (primarily concrete) remain intact.

Workmanship: The Wash maintains integrity of workmanship, which is limited based on the property type.

Feeling: The Wash maintains integrity of feeling, as it still feels like a concrete channel from the midcentury.

Association: The Wash maintains its important historical associations with the LACDA Project (1936- 1967) and its important contribution to the development of major flood control infrastructure in Los Angeles.

5.2.3 Statement of Significance
Working with the assumption that the larger LACDA Project is an historic district that is significant under Criterion A for its important influence on the development of the Los Angeles region, Little Dalton Wash appears eligible under NRHP Criterion A, CRHR Criterion 1, and City Criterion 1 as a contributor to the potential LACDA Project with important contributions to flood control in Glendora/the greater Los Angeles region. The Little Dalton Wash appears ineligible as an individual resource.

The period of significance for the LACDA project is from 1936 to 1967. Starting with the passage of the federal Flood Control Act and ending when the LACDA Project was brought to completion.

Little Dalton Wash's character-defining features include its alignment, concrete channelization, and its connection to the larger LACDA.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
49 November 2023
6 Findings

6.1 Identified Resources
Two built environment resources were identified within the APE as a result of this study:

Finkbiner Park was found eligible for local designation under City Criterion 1 as Glendora’s first park and an important feature of Glendora’s historical development and cultural heritage. Finkbiner Park retains its historic integrity and ability to convey important historical associations at the local level of significance. Therefore, while Finkbiner Park is not considered a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA, it is considered a historical resource under CEQA.

Little Dalton Wash appears eligible under NRHP Criterion A, CRHR Criterion 1, and City Criterion 1 as a potential contributor to the LACDA Project with important contributions to flood control in Glendora/the greater Los Angeles region. Therefore, Little Dalton Wash is considered an historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA and a historical resource under CEQA.

6.2 Analysis of Potential Adverse Effects/Impacts
The proposed project will not result in a significant impact to Finkbiner Park, as the project will not cause any changes to the park's character-defining features, which are limited to its most basic elements, including its footprint and function as a city park. None of the elements of the park proposed for modification as part of the project (i.e., features of the ballpark, basketball court, picnic areas, landscaping, and hardscaping) contribute to the historical significance of the park. Therefore, the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact to this historical resource under CEQA.

The proposed project will not adversely impact any character-defining features of Little Dalton Wash that contribute to its significance under NRHP Criterion A, including its alignment and its connection to the larger LACDA. Nor will the proposed project significantly impact its basic material, which is limited to concrete. None of the new proposed project elements affecting the Wash (i.e., installation of the small cast-in-place concrete wall and outlet for the gravity pipe) will impact the important character-defining features of the Wash or the larger LACDA. Therefore, the proposed project will result in no adverse effects on historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and no significant impacts to historical resources under CEQA.

In conclusion, the proposed project will result in no adverse effects to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and no significant impacts to historical resources under CEQA.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
50 November 2023
7 Bibliography
Burns, Adam. 2023. “Pacific Electric Railway: ‘Comfort, Speed, Safety.’” Accessed online via https://www.american-rails.com/pacific.html.

Blumberg, Naomi and Ida Yalzadeh. 2019. “City Beautiful Movement.” Accessed online via https://www.britannica.com/topic/City-Beautiful-movement.

City of Glendora. 1999. Historic Preservation Element of the City of Glendora General Plan.

Glendora California: City of Glendora. Prepared June 14, 1999. http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=24496 County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation. n.d. Salient Dates in the History of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation. “History.” Accessed online via http://parks.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dpr/AboutUs/History/.

Covina Argus. 1910. “Notice of Intention of the Board of Supervisors to Form a Storm Water District.” (Covina, California). February 5, 1910. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/clip/79327312/1910-notice-to-form-storm-water-district/. 1930. “Alosta to Open Traffic in another week.” (Covina, California). October 3, 1930.

Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/8328488. 1934. “Flood Control Shovel at Work on Wash.” “(Covina, California). January 26, 1934.

Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/8334127. 1935. “No funds ready for improvement of Little Dalton.” (Covina, California). February 15, 1935. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/708128. 1958. “Project Bids Opened for Glendora Flood Control.” (Covina, California). June 19, 1958. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/26708211.

Cranz, Galen. 1982. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Park in America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Daily News Post. 1973. “Tax rate drop seen at Citrus Budget.” (Monrovia, California). July 21, 1973. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/606936060/?terms=.

Glendora Historic Preservation Committee. n.d. “Glendora’s Historic Core.” City of Glendora.

Accessed online via https://www.glendorahistoricalsociety.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/Glendora-WalkingTour.pdf.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
51 November 2023
Glendora Strikers. 1946. Pamphlet. “Conscientious Objectors Go On Strike.” http://civilianpublicservice.org/sites/default/files/sites/civilianpublicservice.org/files/docume nts/glendora-strikers.pdf
Gruendyke, B.P. November 1946. “Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.” Los Angeles Employee’s Association Magazine.

Gumprecht, Blake. 2001. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Second Edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hedger, Harold E. and Patrick H. Emery. 1975. Los Angeles Flood Control District 1915-1975. Los Angeles County Flood Control District pamphlet. On file at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Office.

Landers, J. D. 2001. Images of America: Glendora. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Los Angeles County Library. 1928. Photograph of Big Dalton Dam and Reservoir, 1928. Accessed online via http://history.lacountylibrary.org/digital/collection/p15952coll17/id/958 Los Angeles Herald. 1909. “Azusa Bridge.” (Los Angeles, California). November 7, 1909.

Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/46561165.

Los Angeles Evening Express. 1916. “Levy Made to Finance Building Check Dams.” (Los Angeles, California). February 21, 1916. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/608088132.

Los Angeles Times (LAT). 1907. “Los Angeles County – Its Cities and Towns.” (Los Angeles, California). September 15, 1907. Accessed online via
https://www.newspapers.com/image/379998403.
1909. “Big Dam Goes Out.” (Los Angeles, California). February 9, 1909. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/380263018.
1927. “Crop Worth King’s Ransom: Citrus Grown in Upper San Gabriel Valley Returns $7,000.” (Los Angeles, California). December 27, 1927. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1990).
1941. “Conscientious Objectors Arrive for Duty at West’s First Camp.” (Los Angeles, California). June 3, 1941. Accessed online via
https://www.newspapers.com/image/380797271.
1959. “This Week in Review: Glendora.” (Los Angeles, California). November 8, 1959.

Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/381102531.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
52 November 2023
1960. “Bids Asked on Dalton Flood Control Channel.” (Los Angeles, California). March 3, 1960. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/381218730. 1963. “County to Fence Part of Little Dalton Wash.” (Los Angeles, California). June 30, 1963. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/381568393. 1966. “Valley Roads.” (Los Angeles, California). July 24, 1966. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/382326349.
1973. “Roads to be Built in Flood Channels.” (Los Angeles, California). July 5, 1973.

Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/381868548. 1975. “Glendora Gets $137,500 to Top Dalton Wash.” (Los Angeles, California). July 10, 1975. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/382684575. 1987. “Petitioners Seek to Save Glendora’s Orange Trees.” (Los Angeles, California).

January 4, 1987. Accessed online via https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-01-04- ga-1714-story.html
Monrovia Daily News. 1926. “Finish dam by July 1926.” (Monrovia, California). August 21, 1926. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/606331506.

Monrovia Daily News-Post. 1940. “Santa Anita, Sawpit in Federal Plans.” (Monrovia, California). June 27, 1940. Accessed online via
https://www.newspapers.com/image/606550358.
1940. “Glendora Project Ends July 12.” (Monrovia, California). July 9, 1940. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/606551488.

Monrovia News-Post. 1934. “Flood Control Rate to Rise.” (Monrovia, California). May 26, 1934.

Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/606503533.

Natural Atlas. 2023. Little Dalton Wash. Accessed online via https://naturalatlas.com/washes/little-dalton-820913.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2023. Historic Aerial Photographs of Finkbiner Park and Little Dalton Wash. Accessed online via https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Pomona Progress Bulletin. 1935. “Conduit Bids to be Sought.” (Pomona, California). April 4, 1935. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/623464683. 1955. “Flood Control Speedup Asked By W. Covina.” (Pomona, California). August 25, 1955. Accessed online via https://www.newspapers.com/image/623686080.

Historic Built Environment Technical Report
Finkbiner Park Stormwater Capture Project
53 November 2023
Price, R.L. 2008. Glendora (Postcard History Series). Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina.

Price, R.L. 2012. Stories of Old Glendora. American Chronicles: A History Press Series. Charleston, South Carolina.

ProQuest. 2023. Sanborn Maps of Finkbiner Park and Little Dalton Wash. Accessed online via San Diego Public Library.

Reyes, Jenny. 2022. “Finkbiner Park/West Oaks Grove.” Clio: Your Guide to History. Accessed online via https://theclio.com/entry/147113.

San Bernadino County Sun. 1946. “21 Surrender After ‘Mutiny’ of Glendora Conscientious Objectors.” (San Bernadino, California). May 31, 1946.

The Glendoran. 2003. “Park of the People: Finkbiner Park History.” July/August 2003. Pg 43-

46. Turhollow, Anthony F. 1975. A History of the Los Angeles District, US Army Corps of Engineers 1898-1965. Published by U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. The National Geologic Map Database, Map View.

Available online (https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/). U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC.

University of California, Santa Barbra (UCSB). 2018. Historic Aerial Photographs of Finkbiner Park and Little Dalton Wash. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder.

Van Wormer, Stephen. 1985. Historical Resource Overview and Survey for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area Review Study. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Manuscript on file at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Office.

Waugh, J.C. 2003. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.

Appendix A
DPR Forms: Finkbiner Park and Little
Dalton Wash

Page 1 of 24 ends

Glendora City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Glendora City Council
January 27, 2026