Agenda packet — Loma Linda City Council, January 13, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

CITY OF LOMA LINDA

CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE LOMA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGULAR JOINT MEETING
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, CA 92354
The Regular Joint Meeting of the Loma Linda City Council, Housing Authority and Successor Agency is scheduled in the Council Chambers, 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, California. Under Municipal Code Section 2.08.010, study sessions or closed session items may begin at 5:30 pm. or as soon thereafter as possible. A recess may be called at the discretion of the City Council.

The Agenda and Reports are available for public review in the City Clerk's Office during regular business hours and can also be accessed on the City's website at www.lomalinda-ca.gov at least 72 hours before the meeting. Individuals wishing to speak on agenda items are encouraged to submit their names using the kiosk at the meeting or through the City's website. Speakers are required to provide their names for the public record. Comments provided during Oral Reports/Public Participation is limited to 3 minutes for each speaker. Please note that the meetings are recorded for public record.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if an individual requires special assistance to provide public comments or need other accommodations, please contact the City Clerk at least 48 hours before the meeting at (909) 799-2819 or via email at [email protected] to allow time for the City to make reasonable arrangements to the best of their ability.

1. Call to Order

1.A. Call to Order - City Council [CC], Housing Authority Board [HA], and Successor Agency [SA] — Each agenda item will identify the applicable governing body taking action by the corresponding abbreviation.

1.B. Roll Call

1.C. Closed Session - 6:00pm - 7:00pm or soon thereafter — Conference with Legal Counsel on Potential Litigation – One (1) case - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)

1.D. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Rigsby

1.E. Items to be Added or Deleted

1.F. Oral Reports/Public Participation - Non-Agenda Items (Each Speaker limited to 3 minutes. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action or discussion can be taken by City Council, Housing Authority or Successor Agency)

2. Public Hearing Items

2.A. Introduce Council Bill #O-2026-01 - Introduce on First Reading and set the Second Reading to February 10, 2026, to Amend the Planning Commission Terms from Three to Four Year Terms (Community Development) [CC]
— Recommendation: Introduce Council Bill #O-2026-01 on first reading and set the second reading to February 10, 2026, Ordinance Title:
— AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING IN PART, TITLE 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONAL), CHAPTER 2.24.030 (TERMS OF MEMBERS – FILLING

VACANCIES), OF THE LOMA LINDA MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH WILL ESTABLISH UPDATED TERM

PERIODS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM THREE TO FOUR YEARS IN ORDER TO BE

CONSISTENT WITH CITY COUNCIL TERM PERIODS

2.B. Approve Master Development Application (MDA) No. 2024-0008 and Precise Plan of Design (PPD) No.

P21-247 - Consideration of the architectural elevations and site configuration of a 66-unit multifamily development located on Barton Road (Community Development) [CC] — Recommendation: Find the proposed project is consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning designation and general plan policies as recommended; and Approve Certificate of Appropriateness of Precise Plan of Design application (PPD-P21-247) as recommended by staff

3. Scheduled Agenda Items

3.A. Adopt Council Bill Nos. R-2026-01 and R-2026-02 - Resolutions Calling the Election and Regulations for Candidate Statements for the June 2, 2026, General Municipal Election — Recommendation: Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-01 - Calling the Election, Resolution Title:
— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026, FOR THE

ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES.
— Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-02 - Regulations for Candidate Statements, Resolution Title:
— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026.

4. Consent Calendar

4.A. Approve the Demands Registers of December 23, 2025, and January 13, 2026 (Finance) [CC/HA] — Recommendation: Approve, as presented, the Demands for payment

4.B. Accept the Treasurer's Report - December 2025
— Recommendation: Accept the report for filing

4.C. Accept the Fire Department's Activity Report - December 2025 (Fire) [CC] — Recommendation: Accept the report for filing

4.D. Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-03 - A Resolution of the Loma Linda City Council, Establishing the New Salary Table for Employees Effective January 1, 2026 (Human Resources) [CC] — Recommendation: Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-03 as recommended, Resolution Title:
— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE NEW SALARY TABLE FOR EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026

4.E. Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-04 - A Resolution Revising Job Description for the Lead Utilities Maintenance Technician in the Water Distribution Division of the Public Works Department (Human Resources) [CC]
— Recommendation: Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-04 as recommended, Resolution Title:
— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A

REVISED JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE LEAD UTILITIES MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN IN THE WATER

DISTRIBUTION DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

4.F. Adopt Council Bill #R-2026-05 - A Resolution Accepting the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program Award in the Amount of $21,570 and Approve a Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2025– 26 (Fire) [CC]
— Recommendation: Adopted Council Bill #R-2026-05 as recommended — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING

THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM

4.G. Approve Amendment No. 2 (A-2) to Lease Agreement No. 10-752 with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Extending the Lease Term for the Operation and Maintenance of an Underground 2- Inch Electrical Conduit and 1.25-Inch Conduit Within Approximately 345 Linear Feet of Right-of-Way - Location: San Timoteo Creek, South of Redlands Blvd. and West of Anderson St. (Public Works) [CC] — Recommendation: Approve Amendment No. 2 to Lease Agreement No. 10-752 as recommended

4.H. Approve a Supplemental Appropriation of $144,000 from Special Projects Construction fund and Award Contract to Copp Contracting, Inc. for Pavement Rehabilitation at Auto Plaza Dr., Coloma St., Curtis St., and State St. for $340,226.14 (CIP 25-130) (Public Works) [CC] — Recommendation: Approve the supplemental appropriation and award contract as recommended.

4.I. Award Contract to Purchase and Install Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Radios to Applied Technology Group of Bakersfield, CA, for $124,744.12 (Public Works) [CC] — Recommendation: Award purchase as recommended

4.J. Appropriate $100,000 from Special Project Construction Fund to Purchase 140 Bollard Sidewalk Lights (Public Works) [CC]
— Recommendation: Approve the appropriation and purchase as recommended

4.K. Approve Purchase of a Ford F250, Ford F150 and a Trailer for the Public Works Water and Sewer Divisions (Public Works) [CC]
— Recommendation: Approve purchases as recommended

4.L. Approve a Supplemental Appropriation of $42,000 from General Fund Balance for the Purchase of a 2026 Ford Bronco from Fairview Ford in the amount of $35,000, and Authorize the Purchase and Installation of Emergency Lights, Sirens, and Related Accessories in an Amount not to exceed of $42,000. (Fire) [CC]
— Recommendation: Approve the supplemental appropriation and vehicle purchase as recommended

4.M. Approve Proposal from Strategic Engineering and Automation Systems to Provide Professional Services for Water System Discovery Assessment for $22,165 (Public Works/Information Technology) [CC] — Recommendation: Approve proposal as recommended

4.N. Approve the Notice of Completion of Pavement Rehabilitation by Slurry Seal Method at Various Locations for $254,989.50 (CIP 25-126) - Contractor: Doug Martin Contracting Company (Public Works) [CC] — Recommendation: Accept the project as complete and authorize recordation of Notice of Completion documents

4.O. Approve the Notice of Completion for Pavement Rehabilitation at Various Locations for $293,209.55 (CIP 25-125) - Contractor: LCR Earthworks & Engineering Corporation (Public Works) [CC] — Recommendation: Accept the project as complete and authorize recordation of Notice of Completion documents

5. Old Business

5.A. Update Report from Inland Temporary Homes Regarding the Lease and Proposed Site Improvements of the Heritage Park Complex (Jeff Little) [CC]

6. New Business

6.A. Economic Development Project Report Update (City Manager) [CC]

6.B. Direction from City Council to Conduct a Community Survey (Councilmember Spencer) [CC]

7. Reports

7.A. Reports of Council Members

7.B. Reports Of Officers

8. Adjournment
Date Posted: January 8, 2026

POSTING
I, Lynette Arreola, City Clerk, do hereby certify and declare that, I caused this agenda to be posted at the following three (3) locations, to-wit: 1) Loma Linda Branch Library, 25581 Barton Road, Loma Linda, California; 2) City Council Chambers, 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, California; 3) U. S. Post Office Annex, Newport Avenue, Loma Linda, California
Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
City of Loma Linda, California
City of Loma Linda
Regular City Council, Housing Authority, and Successor
Agency Joint Meeting Staff Report
A. Introduce Council Bill #O-2026-01 - Introduce on First Reading and set the Second Reading to February 10, 2026, to Amend the Planning Commission Terms from Three to Four Year Terms (Community Development) [CC] Meeting
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 7:00 PM
Agenda Group
Public Hearing Items Item: 2A.

To
City Council
From
Lorena Matarrita, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take the following actions:

1. DETERMINE that the proposed code amendment does not qualify as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

2. INTRODUCE Council Bill #O-2026-01 on First Reading and set the second reading to February 10, 2026, an Ordinance amending Title 2.24.030 of the Loma Linda Municipal Code to modify the existing language to establish four-year terms periods for Planning Commission members, implement standardized staggering for appointments, and retain the existing procedure for filling vacancies. Ordinance Title:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING IN PART, TITLE 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL), CHAPTER 2.24.030 (TERMS OF MEMBERS –

FILLING VACANCIES) OF THE LOMA LINDA MUNICIPAL CODE
BACKGROUND:

City staff is seeking to revise the current code which establishes term periods for Planning Commission members.

Title 2.24.030 currently establishes the term periods with the initial one, two, and three year appointments for the Planning Commissioners, with all succeeding terms being set at three years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several re-appointments were delayed or consolidated, resulting in inconsistencies with the terms for the Planning Commissioners. Staff has evaluated the issue and to correct the inconsistencies from previous years, Staff is proposing to amend Title 2.24.030 to update the term period to four years. The proposed amendment is intended to bring the term periods of the Planning Commission to be in line with the term periods of the City Council, as well as creating a manageable and predictable appointment schedule by ensuring that no more than three Planning Commission terms can expire in any given year.

In 2025, two commissioners were re-appointed. Upon approval of this amendment, it is expected for their terms to expire in 2029 (four years later) rather than in 2028. In addition, to implement the proposed changes efficiently, the three seats set to originally expire simultaneously in 2026 would now receive an extension to 2027, allowing the new stagger pattern to begin that year. The proposed amendment was also previously reviewed at the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, with the Planning Commission recommending approval of the proposed amendment.

ANALYSIS:

The proposed amendment modifies Title 2.24.030 Term of Members – Filling Vacancies in order to establish a uniform four-year term period for all Planning Commission members, which is intended to be consistent with the term periods of City Council. Amending the code to a four-year term period allows for consistent management of the commissioner’s terms and predictability for long-range planning of appointments. The proposed code language also allows for a member to serve until a new commissioner has been selected, which ensures uninterrupted service in the event there are any appointment delays. Terms for commissioners will begin on July 1 st of the year of
appointment, and are set to expire on June 30th of the fourth year. The proposed amendment is also consistent with term periods established by other local agencies as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed Code Amendment is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There are no financial impacts expected from this proposed Code Amendment.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND COMMENTS:

The public notice for this project was duly posted on December 29, 2025, in three public places (City Hall, library, post office), and posted on The Sun newspaper. Additionally, the notice was made available on the City’s website.

As of the date on this report, there have been no written or oral comments received in opposition or in favor of the proposed code amendment.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed amendment is intended to create consistency with the term limits established for City Council, and create a stable, consistent, and predictable appointment process for the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council Introduce Council Bill #O-2026-01 on first reading and set the second reading to February 10, 2026, for adoption.

Attachments
Attachment A - Council Bill O-2026-02 - Ordinance.pdf
ATTACHMENT A Council Bill O-2026-01
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA
LINDA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING, IN PART, TITLE 2
(ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL), CHAPTER 2.24.030 (TERMS OF MEMBERS – FILLING VACANCIES) OF THE LOMA LINDA

MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Loma Linda has previously established the Planning Commission, as set forth in the Loma Linda Municipal Code Chapter 2.24; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 639, which amended Planning Commission term limits to provide one commissioner with a one-year term, two commissioners with two-year terms, and two commissioners with three-year terms, with all subsequent appointments receiving three-year terms or serving until a successor is appointed; and WHEREAS, in 2022, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there had been delays and inconsistencies in the reappointment cycle of Planning Commission members; and WHEREAS, in 2025, two Planning Commissioners were reappointed, and upon adoption of this Ordinance, their adjusted terms will conclude in 2029 rather than 2028 to align with the updated term structure; and
WHEREAS, the remaining three Planning Commissioners, whose terms were previously scheduled to expire simultaneously in 2026, will receive a one-year term extension to 2027 to allow proper staggering of terms going forward; and
WHEREAS, amendments, as set for in “Exhibit A” to this Ordinance, are proposed for Title 2 (Administration and Personnel), Chapter 2.24.030 (Terms of Members – Filling Vacancies) of the Loma Linda Municipal Code through the City-initiated Master Development Application (MDA-2025- 0051) enabling an update to the term limits for Planning Commissioners from three to four years so that it is consistent with the term limits established for the City Council; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Ordinance, at which an oral and written presentation was made and comments received, and the Planning Commission made a recommendation to City Council to adopt the ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the City Council conducted the first reading of the code amendment and the second reading on February 10, 2026 where it adopted the Ordinance, approving Master Development Application (MDA-2025-0051); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the proposed amendments and find that Master Development Application (MDA-2025-0051) is consistent with the Loma Linda General Plan, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, and is in conformity with good land use practice.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA LINDA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals of this ordinance are true and correct.

ATTACHMENT A
Section 2. Environmental Exemption. Pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the California Public Resources Code, the adoption of Council Bill No. O-2026-01 (MDA-2025-0051) is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that CEQA does not apply to the proposed amendment as it is not considered a project under CEQA.

Section 3. Approval. The Planning Commission recommended adoption and City Council hereby adopts Council Bill No. O-2026-01, which amends in part, Title 2 (Administration and Personnel), Chapter 2.24.030 (Terms of Members – Filling Vacancies) of the Loma Linda Municipal Code (MDA-2025-0051) as indicated in “Exhibit A” and as referenced herein.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect this validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted within fifteen (15) days from its passage pursuant to Government Code section 36933.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective a minimum of thirty (30) days after passage.

This Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Loma Linda, California, held on the 13th day of January 2026 and was adopted on the 10th day February 2026 by the attached vote.

Phillip Dupper, Mayor
Attest:

Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
CERTIFIED VOTE:

I, Lynette Arreola, City Clerk of the City of Loma Linda, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. XXX was duly introduced on first reading on the 13th day of January 2026 and adopted by the City Council at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Loma Linda this 10
th day of February 2025.

Lynette Arreola, City Clerk
Exhibit A
Modifications to Title 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL) Municipal Code Title 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
Chapter 2.24 Planning Commission
Title 2.24.030 Terms of Members – Filling Vacancies
The terms of the members of the planning commission shall be as follows: one shall be appointed for a term of one year, two for a term of two years, and two for a term of three years. All succeeding terms shall be for a period of three years or until a successor is appointed. If a vacancy occurs otherwise than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by appointment of the city council, for the unexpired portion of the term.

Title 2.24.030 Terms of Members – Filling Vacancies
The terms of the members of the Planning Commission shall be as follows:

A. Terms of Office. All appointments and reappointments shall be for a period of four years, unless the appointment is to finish the term of a vacancy in which case the appointment will be for the remainder of the term of the vacancy. If a vacancy occurs, then it shall be filled by appointment of the City Council, for the unexpired portion of the term.

B. Staggered Appointments. Terms shall be staggered amongst the members so that no more than three (3) Commission terms expire in any given year. Terms shall begin on July 1 of the year of appointment and expire on June 30 of the fourth year.

City of Loma Linda
Regular City Council, Housing Authority, and Successor
Agency Joint Meeting Staff Report
B. Approve Master Development Application (MDA) No. 2024-0008 and Precise Plan of Design (PPD) No. P21- 247 - Consideration of the architectural elevations and site configuration of a 66-unit multifamily development located on Barton Road (Community Development) [CC]
Meeting
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 7:00 PM
Agenda Group
Public Hearing Items Item: 2B.

To
Planning Commission
From
Lorena Matarrita, Community Development Director
Via
Gabriel Rivera, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take the following actions:

1. FIND that the proposed project is consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning designations and general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report has already been certified, and that no additional environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. APPROVE Certificate of Appropriateness of Precise Plan of Design application (PPD-P21-247) for the review of architectural elevations and site configuration for a proposed 66-unit multifamily development consisting of four detached residential buildings totaling 65,926 square feet with recreational amenities, a detention basin, and associated landscaping improvements. The site is located along Barton Road, east of California Street and west of New Jersey Street, within the High-Density Residential land use designation and zoning district, and the Mission Historical Overlay District. Recommended approvals are based on the Findings contained in this Staff Report and are subject to the Conditions of Approval.

BACKGROUND:

In December of 2021, the applicant, Jay Nelson, on behalf of the owner, Ed Haddad, submitted a project application for a 66-unit apartment complex, named “Zanja Heritage Village.” The project consists of four threestory apartment buildings on a 5.15-acre vacant lot located on Barton Road, and east of California Street. Planned amenities include a fitness center, clubhouse, walking trail, childcare room, picnic areas, a tot-lot, outdoor cabanas, and associated landscaping and infrastructure improvements. The site is designated as High Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Map, zoned R-3, and falls within the boundaries of the Historic Mission Overlay District.

The project was reviewed by the Administrative Review Committee, which includes comments from Fire, Public Works and Building. All comments have been incorporated into the project’s final documents and/or addressed through the Conditions of Approval. See Attachment D.

On November 4, 2024, the project was brought forth to the Historical Commission, where the applicant had initially proposed the project with an architectural Usonian period style. After receiving guidance from the Historical Commission, the applicant revised the project to be more in line with the Mission Revival Architectural style. The Historical Commission, at the November 3, 2025, hearing, reviewed the redesign and recommended approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project at the December 13, 2025, public hearing, with the added condition that the applicant include an egress access point on the west end of the development, allowing for two points of egress access on the site.

PERTINENT DATA
Applicant: Jay Nelson, Archimetrics Design Build Studio Owner: Ed Haddad
General Plan/Zoning: High Density Residential (R-3) (0-13 du/ac) Site: The Project Site encompasses a 5.15-acre parcel that is currently vacant, generally located along Barton Road, east of California Street, and west of New Jersey Street.

APN's: 0292-162-21, 0292-162-22
Topography: Relatively flat and graded
General Plan, Zoning and Existing Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Existing Use
Project
Site
High Density
Residential (R-3)
High Density
Residential (R-3) Vacant, graded lot
North
High Density
Residential (R-3)
High Density
Residential (R-3)
Barton Vineyard
Apartments
South General Commercial
(C-2)
General Commercial
(C-2)
Vacant Parcel
East High Density
Residential (R-3)
High Density
Residential (R-3)
Barton Vineyard
Apartments
West General Commercial
(C-2)
General Commercial
(C-2)
Commercial Plaza
Gas Station
ANALYSIS:

Project Description
The applicant, Jay Nelson, is requesting approval for the development of a 66-unit multifamily apartment development. The 66 units will be split amongst four buildings, and is comprised of three floors as shown on Attachment B, Architectural Plans.

Architectural Style
Per the Historical Commission’s recommendations, the project design was revised from a Usonian Period style to a Mission Revival architectural style. The updated style is consistent with the requirements of the Historic Mission Overlay District and the general area. The Mission Revival style proposes elements such as Spanish style red clay tile roofing, archway architectural elements on the front façade, tower elements on the front elevation, faux balconies featuring decorative wrought iron, decorative wrought iron vents below the parapets, and other various design elements that pay homage to the Mission Inn in Riverside and the Asistencia in Redlands, as shown on Attachment B.

Each building incorporates varied roof lines and massing, with a smooth stucco finish. The building will be painted in Dunn Edwards “Whisper” and Milk Mustache” finish, and the trim will be painted with Dunn Edwards “Cuban Cigar” as shown on the elevation plans shown on Attachment B. The building will have a height of 34’ 5” to the roof ceiling, while the architectural elements extend to a height of between 37’ 2” at the parapet and 40’ 7” for the tower element. The overall height of the building is compliant with the maximum allowed height permitted by the High Density Residential (R-3) zone, and the code allows for flexibility for the height of architectural elements. The project design also meets all applicable setbacks and lot coverage requirements of the R-3 zone. The project will also incorporate a monument sign on the south elevation facing Barton Road, and address signage for the buildings itself, which will be reviewed under a separate ministerial permit.

Floor Plans
The project consists of four multi-story residential buildings; each designed with stacked-flat configurations above ground-floor garage levels. Each structure is labeled by size and configuration as Building 1 (includes two structures), Building 1A, and Building 2.

Building 1 - The two Building 1 structures share the same design, mirrored from one another, and each contains 17 units and 14 garages. The units within the buildings are broken up by unit type, with 7 options to choose from. Unit square footage for Building 1 ranges from 730 sq. ft. at the smallest size and 1,097 sq. ft.to the largest unit. Both Building 1s will include 3 ADA units on the first floor (Unit Plan A1, A3, B6), along with 3 ADA designated garage spaces. In total the two Building 1 structures have a total square footage of approximately 16,876 sq. ft. each.

Building 1A - Building 1A is situated in the same way as Building 1, however the first floor of the building will feature a childcare facility, fitness area, gym, and 14 garages. The remaining floors of building 1A will be situated in a similar fashion as Building 1, with the second and third floors containing 14 units each. Like Building 1, the units are broken up by unit type, with 7 unit types being offered. The unit type square footage range from 730 sq. ft. to 1,097 sq. ft. in size. In total Building 1A will have a total square footage of 14,004 sq. ft..

Building 2 - For Building 2, the first floor will be comprised of 18 units, 16 single car garage spaces, leasing office, club house, and the maintenance janitorial storage office. The second floor will be comprised of 9 units ranging from 730 sq. ft. to 1,055 sq. ft., while the third floor will have 18 units ranging from 730 sq. ft. to 1,055 sq. ft. In total, Building 2 will have a square footage of approximately 18,170 sq. ft..

Configuration of the Site/Layout
The project site is approximately 5.15 acres and includes four multifamily apartment buildings. Both Building 1 and 1A are located on the west side of the project site, while Building 1(mirrored) and Building 2 are located on the east end of the project site. The proposed buildings are setback 89’ 4” from the front property line, 64’ from the east property line, 64’ from the west property line, and 136’ from the rear property line at the closes point to the proposed structures. The proposed development also includes amenities such as a gym/fitness facility, community clubhouse, children’s play area with tot lot, a community garden, barbeque areas with table seating throughout the site, outdoor spa, outdoor cabanas, and an amphitheater area as shown on the Preliminary Landscaping Plan. See Attachment C. Also included within the site is a WQMP drainage basin with perimeter fencing, which is surrounded by a 8’ wide walkable trail for residents to use. Each building incorporates a interior courtyard area, while the area between each building, such as between Building 1A and 2, incorporates an active open space area containing the amenities such as a ping pong table, foosball court, and playground area.

Setting/Access
Vehicle circulation is contained entirely within the interior of the project via private 28’ to 38’ internal drive aisles.

Access to the site is provided from a proposed drive aisle from Barton Road, leading directly into the motor court, two internal 6’ access gates, and internal drive aisles. Parking is accommodated through a combination of groundfloor single car garages integrated into the footprint of each building. Building 1s and 1A will also contain 3 dedicated ADA garage spaces. In addition, the proposal also features two carports, with one containing 12 spaces and the other 9 spaces, located on the west and east end of the site, and four 4 car garages also situated on the east and west ends of the site. Also, the site includes 60 additional surface parking spaces situated throughout the site and two motorcycle spaces. In total, the proposed project will be providing 155 parking spaces, which meets the minimum number of required parking outlined by the Loma Linda Municipal Code. Both This configuration minimizes the need for surface parking, reduces visual impact from the public right-of-way, and maintains a pedestrian-friendly edge along the project perimeter. The development also incorporates four designated trash collection enclosures along the east and west perimeter of the site to facilitate trash service.

Preliminary Landscaping Plan and Front yard Typical Plan The project features a comprehensive, drought-tolerant landscape palette designed to enhance shade, visual interest, and pedestrian comfort throughout the four-building community. The planting plan incorporates a wide range of tree species, including Date Palm, Swan Hill Olive, London Plane, Brisbane Box, Red Crape Myrtle, Western Redbud, native Oaks, Citrus trees within the orchard area, Cypress species for screening, and African Sumac. These trees are distributed across courtyards, paseo connections, playgrounds, and amenity areas to establish a layered canopy and support year-round site activation. Shrubs and accents include Texas Sage, Autumn Sage, Dwarf Bottlebrush, Evergreen Daylily, Foxtail Agave, Blue Glow Agave, Tree Aloe, Trailing Lantana, and Deer Grass which will provide a variety of plat types and more color, while Prostrate Myoporum and decomposed granite (DG) trail segments define the circulation areas for residents to utilize.

The landscaped courtyards integrate a robust mix of recreational amenities, including shaded playgrounds for ages all kids, a dog park, outdoor fitness stations, corn hole, ping-pong and foosball courts, shaded picnic patios, barbecue areas, a citrus orchard with seating, amphitheater-style stepped planters, and a viewing deck overlooking the drainage basin.

Hardscape materials include concrete walkways, colored accent paving, DG trails, and arbor-covered seating areas, creating a pedestrian-friendly environment that links building entries, open space nodes, and internal circulation routes. Collectively, the landscape program provides a cohesive, amenity-rich open space system that supports resident recreation, passive gathering, and environmental performance across the site.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The project will generate positive fiscal impacts to the City through increased property tax revenue based on the improved value of the site, as well as one-time revenues from plan check, building permit, and development impact fees. Ongoing service demands are expected to be consistent with a residential development of this size, and no new public facilities are required. Overall, the project is anticipated to provide a net fiscal benefit while utilizing existing infrastructure and municipal services.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Project was analyzed using parameters listed Section 15183. As demonstrated in the Compliance Memorandum, the Proposed Project was determined to be consistent with the development pattern and land use anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the standards presented in the City’s uniformly applied development policies. Subsequently, impacts associated with the Project’s implementation would not be peculiar to the Project in a manner not accounted for in the General Plan Update EIR. Finally, the Project would not generate impacts at a greater degree than those assumed in the General Plan Update EIR and would not exasperate any significant and unavoidable impacts noted within the General Plan Update EIR.

A copy of the Compliance Memorandum is attached for the consideration of the City Council. In summary, the Compliance Memorandum concludes that the proposed use, with proposed standard Conditions of Approval, will not have a significant effect on the environment.

The project also qualifies under Section 15332 (Class 32, Infill Projects) under the California Environmental Quality Act.

MEASURE V:

On November 7, 2006, Loma Linda voters approved Measure V, the Residential and Hillside Development Control Measure. As part of the review, the project's Level of Service (LOS) was analyzed in accordance with Chapter

19.16 of the Loma Linda Municipal Code (LLMC), requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).

A Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Ganddini Group in December of 2024, assessed the project’s impact on the circulation system. As summarized in the analysis, the traffic study evaluated four study area intersections:

California Street and Orange Avenue, California Street and Barton Road, New Jersey Street and Barton Road, and the future Project Driveway at Barton Road. The analysis determined that the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable Levels of Service (C or better) during peak hours and would continue to operate at an LOS of C or better with the construction of the new 66-unit multifamily project. With the addition of the proposed project’s traffic, the intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS in compliance with Measure V Principle Six.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND COMMENTS
The public notice for this project was duly posted on December 30, 2025, in three public places (City Hall, library, post office), and mailed to the owners of property within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property as required by State law. Additionally, the notice was made available on the City’s website and at the project site. As of the date on this report, there have been no written or oral comments received in opposition or in favor of the proposed project.

FINDINGS
In an effort to ensure that the foregoing project is consistent with the General Plan, compliant with the zoning and other City requirements, compatible with the surrounding area, and appropriate for the site, Findings have been made to support the approval of the project, as required in LLMC §17.30.300. The Precise Plan of Design findings are as follows:

Finding No. 1: The proposal complies with the provisions within the municipal code and is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Finding of Fact: The proposed 66-unit multifamily development is consistent with the provisions of the Loma Linda Municipal Code, the General Plan, and all applicable zoning requirements. The project complies with standards of the High Density Residential (R-3) zone, including all required setbacks, building height, lot coverage, density, parking, and open space. Also, multifamily proposals are considered a permitted use within the High Density Residential (R-3) zone, therefore the project complies with the allowed uses of the zone. The project fulfills the goals of the General Plan by promoting infill residential development, increasing the housing supply for the area along with providing a project that is designed to be consistent with the Historic Overlay District.

Finding No. 2: The site layout and design is of high quality, architecturally and aesthetically pleasing, and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and general community.

Finding of Fact: The site layout and design are of high quality, both architecturally and aesthetically, and are compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and general community. The project provides wellarticulated building elevations, varied materials and finishes, and thoughtful integration of open space and recreational features that enhance livability and visual appeal. The project is designed with a Mission Revival architectural style which is consistent with the requirements of the Historic Overlay District, and consistent with the design of adjacent nearby uses.

Finding No. 3: The proposal will result in an efficient, safe and desirable project that is not materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located.

Finding of Fact: The project has been designed in accordance with all applicable building, fire, and zoning regulations to ensure safe and efficient site circulation, emergency access, and utility service. The development includes appropriate setbacks, vehicle access, and pedestrian pathways, a variety of amenities for residents, and incorporates privacy walls and fencing to buffer the site from adjacent uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding residential development and will not introduce any adverse impacts to the neighborhood or the broader community. Also, per the traffic impact analysis provided by the Ganddini Group, the project will not further degrade the intersections of Barton Road and California Street, Barton Road and New Jersey Street, and California Street and Orange Avenue. The project is within acceptable LOS levels (C or better) and complies with Measure V, therefore project won’t have a significant impact regarding traffic around the site.

Finding No. 4: The project will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city.

Finding of Fact: The proposed development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. The project is consistent with the zoning requirements for the site and all applicable zoning standards. The project is also consistent with the requirements of the Historic Mission Overlay District, and the review of the architecture was reviewed for compliance by the Historical Commission at the November 3, 2025, meeting. In addition, Staff has imposed conditions that will ensure compliance with the mitigations of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, such as preparing a biological report of the site prior to issuing grading permits, limiting construction activities on the weekends/holidays, implementing quiet pile driving technology where feasible, among other mitigation conditions. The public health, safety, and general welfare will be protected through implementation of the attached Conditions of Approval for this Precise Plan of Design to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed 66-unit multifamily apartment development project located west of California Street and directly north of Barton Road is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and Zoning regulations. The development incorporates high-quality architectural design, has adequate pedestrian and vehicle access, a variety of amenities for the residents, and appropriate landscaping. The project meets all applicable development standards, including setbacks, parking, open space, and density requirements of the R-3 zone. Therefore, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve this project based on the findings of this staff report and the attached Conditions of Approval.

Attachments
Attachment A - Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B - Architectural Plan Set.pdf
Attachment C - Preliminary Landscape Plan.pdf
Attachment D - Conditions of Approval.pdf
Attachment E - Compliance Memorandum FINAL 4.30.25.pdf
Attachment F - Preliminary Grading Plans.pdf
Attachment G - Ganddini Group Traffic Impact Analysis.pdf Attachment A
Vicinity Map
Barton Road
California Street

COVER SHEET
A1A3
B6 20' BUILDING SETBACK LINE

32.00'
BUILDING 1 398.15' 490.19'
453.50' 592.41' 60.00'
A1 A3
B6
BUILDING 1
A1A3
B6
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1A

FITNESS
GYM
LEASE
OFFICE
CLUBHOUSE C-1C-2 4 CAR GARAGE 4 CAR GARAGE 4 CAR GARAGE 4 CAR GARAGE EV
EV

EV EV EV
P.A.

P.A.

FOOSBALL COURT

PING PONG TABLE OUTDOOR FITNESS CORNHOLE
TURF
TURF
2-5 YEARS PLAYGROUND
5-12 YEARS PLAYGROUND
P.A.
8' WIDE CONC. WALK

PATIO W/ COVER

ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL WORKOUT STATIONS W/ BENCH

WORKOUT STATIONS W/ BENCH

MOTORCYCLE

PARKING MOTORCYCLE

PARKING
CHILDCARE AREA B F 3
14 15 2
16 20.00' 28.00' 20.00' 18.00' 12.00'

36.89' 22.31'

64.20'

18.00'
19 13
10 C2 4 E7
11 11
12 11
11 11
11 24.00'
11 ACCESS
17 6 1

9.00'
9 SPACES
5 SPACES
3 SPACES
4 SPACES 9 SPACES
7 SPACES
8 SPACES
5 SPACES
9 SPACES 2 SPACES 12 SPACES
10 5 5 H A
16 11 A
13 5
12 11
11 5 G A
C1 K 8 A 6 J
18 6 6
8 SPACES
13 1 F F 8 J I K 2
19 19 K M

17.50'

17.50' 17.50'

17.50' 38.00' 38.00'

5.00'

20.00'

20.00' 34.00'

63.70' 89.37' L
EXISTING 6'-0" HIGH

BLOCK WALL AT

PROPERTY LINE

TO REMAIN
EXISTING 6'-0" CHAIN

LINK FENCE AT

PROPERTY LINE

TO REMAIN
EXISTING 6'-0" HIGH

BLOCK WALL AT
PROPERTY LINE 20.00' 13.50' 13.50'
2 SPACES

5.00'

8.40'

9.76'

5.00'

5.00'
FUTURE (OPTIONAL) 20.00'

MOTORCYCLE
SPACES
A1.0 for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582

BUILDING 1
453.50'
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1A

FITNESS
GYM
LEASE
OFFICE

CLUBHOUSE
EV
EV

EV EV EV
P.A.

P.A.

FOOSBALL COURT

PING PONG TABLE
TURF
TURF
2-5 YEARS PLAYGROUND
5-12 YEARS PLAYGROUND
P.A.

PATIO W/ COVER

ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL

WORKOUT STATIONS W/ BENCH

MOTORCYCLE

PARKING MOTORCYCLE

PARKING

CHILDCARE
A1.3
ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582

CORRIDOR
B6
A1
A3 1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
ELEC.

RM.

MAINT.

RM. for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.0 BUILDING 1 - 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1

CORRIDOR
B6A
A1A
A3A 1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
ELEC.

RM.

MAINT.

RM.

CHILD CARE

FITNESS
GYM for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.0A BUILDING 1A - 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1

CORRIDOR
STAIR 2
A1
A3
B2
B6
B5 A4 B3
STAIR 1 for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.1 BUILDING 1 - SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1

CORRIDOR
STAIR 2
B2
B5 A4 B3
B6
A1
A3
STAIR 1
A2.2 BUILDING 1 - 3RD FLOOR PLAN 1 for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
TYP. AC

UNIT LOCATIONS
TYP.

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.

LOW PARAPET
+31'-5" T.O.P.

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.

LOW PARAPET
+31'-5" T.O.P.

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P. HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P. 3/8 " SLOPE PER FOOT MIN. 3/8 " SLOPE PER FOOT MIN. 3/8 " SLOPE PER
FOOT MIN.

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.
3/8 " SLOPE PER
FOOT MIN.

DS
OS
DS
OS

DS OS OS DS

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.

HIGH PARAPET
LOW PARAPET +34'-5" T.O.P.
+31'-0" T.O.P.

LOW PARAPET
+31'-0" T.O.P.

HIGH PARAPET
+32'- 0" T.O.P.

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.

LOW PARAPET
+32'- 0" T.O.P.

DS
OS

HIGH PARAPET
+34'-5" T.O.P.

LOW PARAPET
+31'- 5" T.O.P.

LOW PARAPET
+32'- 0" T.O.P.

AREA 1
AREA 2
AREA 4 AREA 3
AREA 5
AREA 6
AREA 7
TYP.

NOTE:

ROOF SLOPE TO TOP SHEATHING FROM
3RD FLOOR TOP OF PLATE LINE SET AT 0"
1/4 " SLOPE PER
FOOT MIN. TYP. for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.3 BUILDING 1 - ROOF PLAN 1
BUILDING TYPE 1 - COURTYARD ELEVATION
2 BUILDING TYPE 1 - COURTYARD ELEVATIONS AND SECTION
5 DECK
DECK

CORRIDOR

APARTMENT

APARTMENT
GARAGE for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.4 BUILDING 1A - ELEVATIONS 1
BUILDING 1 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN
BUILDING TYPE 1 - COURTYARD ELEVATION
2 BUILDING TYPE 1 - COURTYARD ELEVATIONS AND SECTION
5 DECK
DECK

CORRIDOR

RESIDENCE

RESIDENCE
GARAGE
BUILDING TYPE 1A - WEST SIDE OF SITE PLAN for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
BUILDING 1A - ELEVATIONS 1 A2.4C
BUILDING 1 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN

COLORS AND MATERIALS
XXXXX
BUILDING TYPE 1 - MOTOR COURT ELEVATION
1 BUILDING TYPE 1 - SIDE ELEVATION
4 XXXXX for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.5 BUILDING 1A - ELEVATIONS 1
BUILDING 1 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN
XXXXX
BUILDING TYPE 1 - MOTOR COURT ELEVATION
1 BUILDING TYPE 1 - SIDE ELEVATION
4 XXXXX for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
BUILDING 1A - ELEVATIONS 1 A2.5C
BUILDING 1 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN

COLORS AND MATERIALS
BUILDING TYPE 1 - SIDE ELEVATION
3 BUILDING TYPE 1 - COURTYARD ELEVATIONS AND SECTION
6 GARAGE

CORRIDOR

RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A2.6 BUILDING 1A - ELEVATIONS 1
BUILDING 1 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN
BUILDING TYPE 1 - SIDE ELEVATION
3 BUILDING TYPE 1 - COURTYARD ELEVATIONS AND SECTION
6 GARAGE

CORRIDOR

RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
BUILDING 1A - ELEVATIONS 1 A2.6C
BUILDING 1 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN

COLORS AND MATERIALS

CORRIDOR
STAIR 1 STAIR 2

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS
OFFICE

BREAK AREA
FILE /
UPS PKG.

STORAGE

RESTROOM

ALL GENDER

RESTROOM

ALL GENDER

CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC.

RM.

MAINT.

RM.

MAINTENANCE

JANITORIAL
STORAGE for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A3.0 BUILDING 2 - 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1
B4
B1
B4 A3 A3
A6
A3
A2
B2

CORRIDOR
STAIR 2
STAIR 1 for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A3.1 BUILDING 2 - 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1

CORRIDOR
B4
B1
B4
A3 A3
A6
A3
A2
B2
STAIR 1
STAIR 2 for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A3.2 BUILDING 2 - 3RD FLOOR PLAN 1
TYP.

TYP. for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A3.3 BUILDING 2 - ROOF PLAN 1
BUILDING TYPE 2 - COURTYARD ELEVATION AND SECTION
5 RESIDENCE

RESIDENCE
GARAGE

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
BUILDING TYPE 2 - COURTYARD ELEVATION 2
BUILDING TYPE 2 - EAST SIDE OF SITE PLAN

CORRIDOR
STAIR 1 STAIR 2

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS

OFFICE CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC. RM. MAINT. RM.

MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL STORAGE B2A
B1A
B4A for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A3.4 BUILDING 2 - ELEVATIONS 1
BUILDING 2 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN
BUILDING TYPE 2 - COURTYARD ELEVATION AND SECTION
5 BUILDING TYPE 2 - COURTYARD ELEVATION 2
BUILDING TYPE 2 - EAST SIDE OF SITE PLAN

RESIDENCE

RESIDENCE
GARAGE

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
STAIR 2 STAIR 1

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS

OFFICE CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC. RM. MAINT. RM.

MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL STORAGE for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
BUILDING 2 - ELEVATIONS 1 A3.4C
BUILDING 2 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN

COLORS AND MATERIALS
UNIT A3
UNIT A3
GARAGE

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
BUILDING TYPE 2 - COURTYARD ELEVATION AND SECTION
6 BUILDING TYPE 2 - SIDE ELEVATION
4 RESIDENCE

RESIDNECE
GARAGE

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
STAIR 1 STAIR 2

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS

OFFICE CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC. RM. MAINT. RM.

RESIDENCE

RESIDNECE
GARAGE

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
BUILDING TYPE 2 - COURTYARD ELEVATION AND SECTION
6 BUILDING TYPE 2 - SIDE ELEVATION
4 CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR
STAIR 2 STAIR 1

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS

OFFICE CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC. RM. MAINT. RM.

COLORS AND MATERIALS
BUILDING TYPE 2 - SIDE ELEVATION 3
BUILDING TYPE 2 - MOTOR COURT ELEVATION 1

CORRIDOR
STAIR 1 STAIR 2

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS

OFFICE CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC. RM. MAINT. RM.

MAINTENANCE
JANITORIAL STORAGE B2A
B1A
B4A for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A3.6 BUILDING 2 - ELEVATIONS 1
BUILDING 2 - ELEVATION KEY PLAN
BUILDING TYPE 2 - SIDE ELEVATION 3
BUILDING TYPE 2 - MOTOR COURT ELEVATION 1

CORRIDOR
STAIR 1 STAIR 2

LEASING OFFICE

MANAGERS

OFFICE CLUB HOUSE

STORAGE
ELEC. RM. MAINT. RM.

COLORS AND MATERIALS
A1 SLOPE 1/4" PER 12"
LIVING
ROOM
DECK

KITCHEN

BEDROOM
BATH
ENTRY
UNIT A-1 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND A1
UNIT A-1 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-A1 UNIT A1 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
SLOPE 1/4" PER 12"
LIVING
ROOM
DECK

KITCHEN

BEDROOM
BATH
ENTRY
UNIT A-2 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND
UNIT A-2 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-A2 UNIT A2 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
A3 SLOPE 1/4" PER 12"
ENTRY
BATH

BEDROOM
DECK
LIVING
ROOM

KITCHEN
UNIT A-3 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND
A3
UNIT A-3 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-A3 UNIT A3 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
A4
ENTRY
BATH

BEDROOM
DECK
LIVING
ROOM

KITCHEN
UNIT A-4 FLOOR PLAN
A4 LEGEND
UNIT A-4 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-A4 UNIT A4 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
A6
A6
UNIT A-6 FLOOR PLAN
UNIT A-6 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-A6 UNIT A6 - SCHEDULES AND NOTES 2 UNIT A6 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1 B2 B2
UNIT B-2 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN UNIT B-2 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-B2 UNIT B2 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
B3 B3
UNIT B-3 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN UNIT B-3 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-B3 UNIT B3 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
B4A B4A
UNIT B-4 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN UNIT B-4 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-B4 UNIT B4 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
B5 B5
UNIT B-5 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN UNIT B-5 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-B5 UNIT B5 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
B6 B6
UNIT B-6 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN UNIT B-6 FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND for : ZANJA Heritage Village Mr. Ed Haddad BARTON ROAD APN 0292-162-21 & 22 LOMA LINDA, CA 92373 1177 IDAHO STREET, STE 200A
REDLANDS, CALIF. 92374
909 322-7582
A-B6 UNIT B6 - FLOOR AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 1
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1

FITNESS
GYM
LEASE
OFFICE

CLUBHOUSE
C-1
C-2
4 CAR
GARAGE
4 CAR
GARAGE
4 CAR
GARAGE 4 CAR GARAGE
P.A.

P.A.

FOOSBALL COURT

PING PONG TABLE

OUTDOOR FITNESS AREA

CORNHOLE
TURF
TURF
2-5 YEARS PLAYGROUND
5-12 YEARS PLAYGROUND
P.A.
8' WIDE CONC. WALK

PATIO W/ COVER

ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL

WORKOUT STATIONS

W/ BENCH

WORKOUT STATIONS W/ BENCH

SYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
TREE
T1 Phoenix dactylifera
Date Palm
18'-20' B.T.H.L 24
T2 Olea europaea 'Swan Hill"
Swan Hill Olive
36" BOXL 10
T3 Platanus acerifolia
London Plane Tree
36" BOXM 13
T4
Lophostemon conferta
Brisbane box
24" BOXM 15
T5
Lagerstroemia i. x fauriei 'Arapaho'
Red Crape Myrtle
24" BOXM 19
T6 Cercis occidentalis
Western Redbud
24 BOXL 15
T7 Quercus 36" BOX
L 18
T8 Citrus 15 GAL
M 33
T9 Cypress 15 GAL
L 72
T10 Rhus Lancea 24" BOX
L 15
SHRUB
Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum'
Japanese Privet
5 GALM-
Leucophyllum f. 'Green Cloud'
Texas Sage 'Green Cloud'
5 GALL-
Salvia g. 'Furman's Red'
Furman's Red Autumn Sage
5 GALL-
Lupinus excubitus
Grape Soda Lupine
1 GALL-
Callistemon 'Little John'
Dwarf Bottlebrush
5 GALL-
Hemerocalis hybrid
Evergreen Red Daylily
1 GALM-
Agave attenuata
Foxtail Agave
5 GALL-
Bougainvillea 'La Jolla'
La Jolla Bougainvillea
1 GALL-
Lantana montevidensis
Trailing Purple Lantana
1 GALL-
Aloe arborescens
Tree Aloe
5 GALL-
Muhlenbergia rigens
Deer Grass
1 GALM-
Agave 'Blue Glow'
Blue Glow Agave
5 GALL-
Liriope muscari
Big Blue Leaf Turf
1 GALM-
Festuca mairei spp
Atlas Fescue
1 GALM-
Bougainvillea 'Barbara Karst'
Barbara Karst Bougainvillea
15 GALL-
Clytostoma calystegiodes
Lavender Trumpet Vine
15 GALM-
Juncus spp.

Rush
5 GALM

GROUNDCOVER
Myoporum parvifolium
Prostrate Myoporum
1 GAL
4' O.C.

L-

PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
(SHRUB &

GROUNDCOVER

PLANTS NOT

SPECIFIED)

QUANTITIES

WILL BE

FINALIZED

DURING FINAL

CONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTS
PHASE.

NOTE:

TURF AT BASIN AREA

ARTIFICIAL TURF
COMPACTED D.G.
'CALIFORNIA GOLD', 3/8" MINUS

SLOPES AT BASIN AREA

REGULAR GRAY CONCRETE

WALKWAYS

PAVED AREAS W/ COLORED

CONCRETE BAND

PLANTING AREAS

SITE PLAN
0' 15' 30' 60'
SCALE: 1"=30'-0"
N
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-259-9428
Ontario, CA 91761
4345 E. Lowell St. Suite M
LandArq, Inc.

Date: 10/10/2023

SITE LEGEND
T7
T1 T2 T3 T4
T5 T6
T8 T9 T10
4 CAR
GARAGE
4 CAR
GARAGE
TURF
TURF

PATIO W/ COVER

ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL ACCENT PAVERS
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL
8' DG TRAIL

WORKOUT STATIONS

W/ BENCH

WORKOUT STATIONS

W/ BENCH

WORKOUT STATIONS

W/ BENCH

WORKOUT STATIONS

W/ BENCH
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-259-9428
Ontario, CA 91761
4345 E. Lowell St. Suite M
LandArq, Inc.

Date: 10/10/2023

ENLARGEMENT
0' 8' 16' 32'
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
N
8' WIDE D.G.

TRAIL

MANUFACTURED

PATIO W/ PICNIC
TABLES

WORKOUT

STATIONS W/
BENCH

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS

DOUBLE GATES

PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS GATE

STEPS DOWN

TO TURF AREA

WORKOUT

STATIONS W/
BENCH
8' WIDE D.G.

TRAIL

MANUFACTURED

PATIO W/ PICNIC
TABLES

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS

DOUBLE GATES

PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS GATE

AMPHITHEATER STEPS W/

RAISED PLANTERS

STEPS DOWN

TO TURF AREA

STEPS DOWN

TO TURF AREA

CONNECTIVITY THROUGHOUT

MAIN COURTYARDS TO DECK

AND OTHER AMENITIES

FENCE AROUND
BASIN

FENCE AROUND
BASIN
FENCE

AROUND BASIN
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 1

FITNESS
GYM
LEASE
OFFICE

CLUBHOUSE
C-1
C-2
4 CAR
GARAGE
4 CAR
GARAGE
P.A.

P.A.

FOOSBALL COURT

PING PONG TABLE

OUTDOOR FITNESS AREA

CORNHOLE
2-5 YEARS PLAYGROUND
5-12 YEARS PLAYGROUND
P.A.
8' WIDE CONC. WALK

ENLARGEMENT
0' 8' 16' 32'
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
N
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-259-9428
Ontario, CA 91761
4345 E. Lowell St. Suite M
LandArq, Inc.

Date: 10/10/2023

DOGGY PARK W/
FENCE

SEATING AREA W/
ARBOR
TRASH

ENCLOSURE
TRASH

ENCLOSURE

VEHICULAR
GATES

PERIMETER

FENCING

SEATING

AREA & BBQ

PEDESTRIAN
GATE

DOGGY PARK W/
FENCE

SEATING AREA W/
ARBOR
TRASH

ENCLOSURE
TRASH

ENCLOSURE

VEHICULAR
GATES

PEDESTRIAN
GATE

DROP-OFF AREA W/

ACCENT PAVERS

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

DOUBLE GATES

MANUFACTURED

PATIO W/ BBQ'S &

SEATING AREAS

SEATING

AREA & BBQ

BOULDER

RETAINING WALLS

CITRUS ORCHARD

W/ PICNIC TABLES

FIREPIT W/ SEAT WALL

SEATING

AREA W/ BBQ

SEATING

AREA & BBQ

SEATING

AREA & BBQ
2-5 YR. & 5-12 YR.

PLAYGROUNDS

W/ SHADE

STRUCTURES

BENCHES SURROUNDING

PLAYGROUND AREAS
PAVED
ENTRY
2-5 YEARS PLAYGROUND
5-12 YEARS PLAYGROUND
P.A.
8' WIDE CONC. WALK
8' DG TRAIL

WORKOUT STATIONS

W/ BENCH
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-259-9428
Ontario, CA 91761
4345 E. Lowell St. Suite M
LandArq, Inc.

Date: 10/10/2023
0' 4' 8' 16'
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
N
TYP. COURTYARD BETWEEN BLDGS.

WORKOUT STATIONS W/ VIEWING VIEWING DECK AND NORTH COURTYARD

PATIO COVER AT BASIN TOP

FITNESS
GYM

CLUBHOUSE
P.A.

P.A.

FOOSBALL COURT

PING PONG TABLE

OUTDOOR FITNESS AREA

CORNHOLE
BUILDING 2
LEASE
OFFICE
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 909-259-9428
Ontario, CA 91761
4345 E. Lowell St. Suite M
LandArq, Inc.

Date: 10/10/2023
0' 4' 8' 16'
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
N

LEASING OFFICE COURTYARD

DOGGY AREAS SOUTH COURTYARD

BARTON ROAD
Attachment D

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 66-unit residential apartment complex with related amenities, located in the High-Density Residential (R-3) Zone within the Historic Mission Overlay. The project includes a detention basin and associated site improvements on a 5.15-acre vacant parcel along Barton Road, east of California Street, and west of New Jersey Street.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DIVISION (909) 799-2839
General

1. The project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the authorized use as described in the approved application materials and plans provided during the public hearing(s).

2. Within 24 months (two years) of the entitlement approval date, the project shall be exercised by substantial construction or the approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, the approval shall become null and void.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
MDA-2024-0008 / PPD No. P21-247 December 17, 2027

3. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions.

4. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof, from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project and the approvals granted herein, including without limitation the Conditions of Approval. Furthermore, the applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against another governmental entity in which the applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity's approval and a condition of such approval is that the City indemnify and defend such governmental entity.

5. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, their affiliates, officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Loma Linda. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorney’s fees, which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition.

City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Rd, Loma Linda, CA 92354 909-799-2830 [email protected] Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 11

6. During the lifetime of the permit, the applicant must comply with all applicable laws and regulations of every local, state, and federal entity; and all such requirements and enactments will be incorporated by reference as conditions of this permit. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements and any amendments thereto will be upon the applicant and his or her transferees or successor in interest.

7. The applicant and property owner, including successors, shall be responsible for compliance with all the Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, and any recommendations contained in any submitted and approved technical report at his/her sole cost and expense, subject to review and approval of the City of Loma Linda.

8. Violation of any term, condition, or project description associated with this approval, or any applicable law, statute, or ordinance, shall constitute a violation of the Loma Linda Municipal Code and is strictly prohibited. The City reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and abatement proceedings or, after notice and public hearing, to modify or revoke this approval if such violations occur or if the project operates as or causes a public nuisance. Additionally, the Community Development Department may revoke this permit if the applicant fails to correct a violation within 30 days of receiving written notice. Nothing in this condition shall limit the City’s authority to take immediate enforcement action as deemed necessary.

9. A copy of the Action (approval) letter and Conditions of Approval shall be signed by the project applicant, attached to each set of permit plans submitted to the appropriate City department for the project, and made available at the project job site at all times.

10. Construction shall be in conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor administrative variation process. Any modification that exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original application(s) and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority. Modifications may include:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures; c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme; and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.

11. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Building Division. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Building Division subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate, if necessary.

The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit.

12. Any future construction or application submitted for development shall meet the requirements of the California Building Code and the California Fire Code as adopted and amended from time to time by the City of Loma Linda and legally in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.

Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 11

13. This approval, along with future grading and construction, is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Loma Linda Municipal Code, Title 17, which includes development standards and requirements relating to: dust and dirt control during construction and grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control; screening; signs, offstreet parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until compliance is met. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground.

14. Signs are not approved as a part of this permit. Prior to establishing any new signs, the applicant shall apply, and receive approval, for a sign permit from the Planning Division (pursuant to LLMC, Chapter 17.18) and a building permit for construction of the signs from the Building Division, as applicable.

15. Any proposed walls and fences, including the proposed perimeter wall and interior lot fence and gates, will require a separate review and permit from the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Submit the applications, along with plans, during the Plan Check process.

16. All graffiti and other forms of vandalism shall be promptly removed and/or repaired within forty-eight hours of notification.

17. The applicant shall comply with all existing and future CARB and SCAQMD regulations related to diesel-fueled trucks, which may include among others: (1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment.

18. On-site fire hydrants shall be maintenance and serviced by the property owner.

19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit funds to cover the cost of mitigation monitoring by City and/or condition compliance fees in effect for the City of Loma Linda as well as any other public agency having jurisdiction over the project in effect at the time. This can be paid through your account on the Online Permit Portal (MDA-2024-0008).

20. The applicant shall work with the City’s franchised solid waste hauler, CR&R, to follow a debris management plan to divert the material from landfills by the use of separate recycling bins (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, aggregate, glass) during demolition and construction to minimize waste and promote recycle and reuse of the materials.

21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall require the preparation of biological reports in compliance with standards established by the City of Loma Linda for development related uses that require discretionary approval to assess the impacts of such development and provide mitigation for impacts to biological resources. The report must be prepared by a qualified biologist; the City Community Development Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project; the report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents, specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, and property owner. In addition, the report must include the following:
a. Specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos);
Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 11
b. Information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects);
c. A description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions; d. A description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements;
e. An assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation; f. A list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.

22. If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction activity, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours.
a. If the Coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the burial following scientific analysis.

23. During review of site plans and if determined by the City, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential ground shaking impacts resulting from development. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential ground shaking hazards.

This site-specific ground shaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the City of Loma Linda Building and Safety Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

24. Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction activities shall be allowed on weekends and holidays until after the buildings are enclosed without prior authorization of the City.

25. Prior to issuance of grading permits, to reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, to the maximum feasible extent, the City shall ask all project applicants to develop a sitespecific noise reduction program, subject to the City’s approval, which includes the following measures:
• Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of problems.
• An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be posted to respond to and track complaints.
• A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed prior to the issuance of a building permit (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.).

Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 11
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used, where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible.

They shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or insulation barriers, or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

26. To further mitigate potential pile-driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction impacts, if it is determined to be part of the project and prior to issuance of grading permits, a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures shall be completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant. This plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation is achieved. These attenuation measures shall include as many of the following control strategies as feasible and shall be implemented prior to any required pile-driving activities:
• Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions; • Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site; • Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as it is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
• Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
• Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

27. If pile-driving occurs as part of the project, it shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no pile driving permitted between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m. No pile driving shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.

28. In the event pile-driving is required and prior to any ground disturbance, a process with the following components shall be established for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to pile-driving construction noise:
• A procedure for notifying City staff and Police Department; • A list of telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours); • A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem;
• Designation of a construction complaint manager for the project; and • Notification of neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities.

Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 11

29. During site plan review, buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and are directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 57 dBA CNEL should be equipped with air conditioning or mechanical ventilation to allow the windows and doors to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, thus reducing noise levels below the level of significance (45 dBA CNEL).

30. During site plan review, buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses that are directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 69 dBA CNEL should incorporate mitigation measures such as building façade upgrades.

31. As determined by the Community Development Department during review of the site plan, a Noise Analysis may be required to determine whether outdoor active use areas, such as backyards and school playgrounds, would need to be protected by freestanding sound walls along the property boundaries where exposure to noise levels are above 70 dBA.

32. The applicant may be required to cover the full costs of independent third-party technical review as may be undertaken by City and City monitoring and inspection, including without limitation, special inspector(s)/inspection(s) during times of extensive or specialized plan check review or construction, and inspections of potential violations of the Conditions of Approval. The applicant shall establish a deposit with the Community Development Department, if directed by the Director or designee, prior to the issuance of a constructionrelated permit and an on-going as-needed basis.

33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department (Building and Safety Division) proof of payment or waiver from the City of San Bernardino for sewer capacity fees and the Redlands Unified School District for school fees.

34. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Development Impact Fees shall be paid to the City of Loma Linda. The fees shall cover 100 percent of the established amount at the time it is due. The impact fees cover public infrastructure, facilities, services, park, traffic fair share, etc. Additionally, the applicant shall either pay the in-lieu fee for the Art in Public Places program or install a public art feature in compliance with Chapter 17.26 of the Loma Linda Municipal Code.

35. Applicant shall include an egress access point for residents on the west side of the property.

Landscaping

36. During the Plan Check process, the applicant shall a set of Final Landscape Plan prepared by a state licensed Landscape Architect, to the online permit portal for review and approval by the Planning and Building Divisions and the Public Works Department. Plans shall cover front yards, parkways, and public right-of-way areas.

37. The Final Landscape Plan shall comply to the City’s landscape regulation and the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, as adopted by the City (LLMC, Ch. 8.12 and Ch. 17.74).

38. The Final Landscape Plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan for PPD NO. P21-247.

39. All fencing, walls and trash enclosures, shall be illustrated on the Final Landscape Plan.

40. Separate Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the required Landscape Maintenance District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department during Plan Check. These plans shall Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 11
include landscaping and irrigation in the public right-of-way, as well as utility laterals, concrete improvements, and tree locations.

41. Any modifications to the Final Landscape Plan or Irrigation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning and Building Divisions prior to issuance of permits.

42. The applicant shall maintain the property and landscaping in a clean, orderly manner and ensure a 14-foot vertical clearance for emergency access at all times.

43. For the lifetime of this permit, the applicant shall replace all dead or missing plants and trees in parkways and public right-of-way areas per the approved Landscape Plan, using similar or equivalent vegetation.

SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

44. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Community Development Department shall ensure that the Applicant has obtained a 401 Certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board, and a 1602 permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

45. Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys prior to project‐related disturbance. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required.

If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 799-2836

46. Upon approval, applicant shall submit professionally prepared plans to the Building and Safety Division’s online portal for Plan Check. Plans must comply with the adopted California Building and Fire Code as adopted and amended by the City of Loma Linda and legally in effect at the time of issuance of building permit.

47. The applicant shall also submit the structural calculations and Title 24 documentation.

48. The applicant shall comply with the LLMC, Chapter 17.24.310 and the California Green Building Standard Code, Section 5.106 to reduce light pollution.

49. The applicant shall implement SCAQMD Rule 403 and standard construction practices during all operations capable of generating fugitive dust, which will include but not be limited to the use of best available control measures and reasonably available control measures such as:
a. Water active grading areas and staging areas at least twice daily as needed; b. Ensure that landscaped areas are installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion;
c. Suspend grading activities when wind gusts exceed 25 mph; d. Sweep public paved roads if visible soil material is carried off-site; e. Enforce on-site speed limits on unpaved surface to 15 mph; and Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 11
f. Discontinue construction activities during Stage 1 smog episodes.

50. To reduce emissions, all equipment used in grading and construction must be tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specification to maximize efficient burning of vehicle fuel.

51. The operator shall maintain and effectively utilize and schedule on-site equipment in order to minimize exhaust emissions from truck idling.

52. The applicant shall ensure that existing power sources are utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on-site power generation during construction.

53. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.

54. The applicant shall comply with all existing and future CARB and SCAQMD regulations related to diesel-fueled trucks, which may include among others: (1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment.

55. The applicant shall provide infrastructure for the Loma Linda Connected Community Program (LLCCP), which includes providing a technologically enabled development for each future unit in the development. Plans for the location of the infrastructure shall be provided with the precise grading plans and approved by the city’s Technology Services Department prior to issuance of grading permits. LLCCP info: http://www.lomalindaca.gov/asp/Site/LLCCP/AboutLLCCP/Introduction/index.asp

56. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface material. Accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code 11A and 11B.

57. Separate permits, not part of this approval, are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to block walls, patios, and storage buildings.

58. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer.

FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 799-2853

59. The Fire Access Plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Department prior to entitlement.

60. Fire Safety Plan review and approval by AHJ prior to start of project.

61. CFC Chapter 33 shall be maintained at all times during construction/demolition.

62. NASFM Construction Fire Safety training for PM and site supervisors.

63. No lumber drops until fire underground is installed and tested, and fire department access points and road have been established.

64. Deferred submittals for a NFPA 13R sprinkler system.

65. Deferred submittals for a NFPA 72 notification and monitoring system.

66. Illuminated address for each structure per LLMC 15.28.190 section 505.1.

Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 11

67. New address will be assigned by fire department once project is approved.

68. Indicate compliance on plan of the standpipe requirement. Buildings three story in height require standpipe and a FD access road of 26’ per LLMC and CFC D105. 905.3.1 Height. In other than Group R-3 and R3.1 occupancies, Class III standpipe systems shall be installed throughout each floor where any of the following occur: a) Buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. b) Buildings are three stories in height. c) Building where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. d) Buildings that are two or more stories below the highest level of fire department vehicle access.

69. B-107.2 Specifics: Any development within the City of Loma Linda that consists of more than a single structure on a commercially developed site; multiple floor commercial structures; multi family commercial residences or fire flow requirements in excess of 2000 gpm will require a two point of connection full looped fire supply to the development. All required onsite fire hydrants will be supplied from this looped system and will be private to the development. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this ordinance the Fire Code Official is authorized to grant modifications for individual cases on application in writing by the owner or a duly authorized representative. The code official shall first find that a special reason makes enforcement of the strict letter of the ordinance impractical and any modification or change does not lessen any fire protection requirements. If so changes or modifications may be approved by the Fire Code Official or Fire Chief.

70. Provide hydrants for fire flow requirements per CFC Annex B and BB.

71. Comply with 509.3 Access to equipment in multi-unit buildings. When automatic fire sprinkler systems or fire alarm systems are installed in buildings constructed for multiple tenants and these systems protect multiple tenant spaces, the main controls and control appurtenances, such as risers, fire alarm control panels, and valves for such systems, shall be located in an attached or included room or an approved weather-resistant enclosure with at least one exterior access door of not less than 3′-0″ by 6′-8″.

72. Comply with 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

73. Comply with D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have not fewer than two means of fire apparatus access for each structure.

74. Comply with 503.1.2 Additional access. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access.

75. For all notes, guidelines and FD apparatus specifications for plan submittal:
http://www.lomalindaca.gov/our_city/departments/fire/fire_prevention/fire_plan_check_application Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 11
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (909) 799-4407

76. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicant must submit improvement plans on 24" x 36" sheets having the City's standard signature blocks. All plans must be drawn in ink and must be signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer at the time of first submittal. The applicant must submit improvement plans for the entire project as one package and must include all project improvements shown on the approved project exhibits and those to be designed per these Conditions. Piecemeal submittal of plans is not acceptable. This package must include all supporting studies.

77. New development shall incorporate features to facilitate the on-site infiltration of precipitation and/or runoff into groundwater basins. Features such as (but not be limited to) detention basins incorporated into project landscaping; and the installation of porous areas within parking areas. Groundwater recharge features shall be included on development plans and shall be reviewed by the Loma Linda Department of Public Works, Water Division and the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.

78. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the precise grading plan with hydrology study, hydraulic calculations, and soils report for the project shall be approved by the Public Works Department.

79. The applicant shall submit final grade certifications, by the grading engineer, to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.

80. Any damage to existing improvements as a result of this project shall be repaired by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

81. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements apply, including SWPPP and WQMP.

82. The project shall comply with the Low Impact Development (LID) Principles and LID Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Southern California.

83. The applicant shall comply with City adopted policies and ordinance regarding the reduction of construction and demolition (C&D) materials, including a required solid waste management plan. Coordinate with Public Works.

84. The City of Loma Linda shall be the water and sewer purveyor.

85. The applicant must provide utilities and design improvements such that all existing and proposed utilities are underground and meeting city specifications, including location, distance and separation requirements, and away from driveways and trees.

86. The applicant shall pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.

87. Improvement plans shall include all connections and locations to the City mains for on-site irrigation, including all meter and backflow prevention devices.

88. No commencement of public street work shall be permitted, except rough grading, until dedication for that street has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain a permit prior to any construction within the City's right-of-way.

89. Any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures shall be destroyed in a manner approved by the Public Works Department in accordance with the State of California Department of Health Services or other appropriate oversight agency.

Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 11

90. All underground structures, except those desired to be retained, shall be broken in, backfilled, and inspected before covering.

91. Should future/subsequent project construction require soil excavation or filling in certain areas, soil sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed.

Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Soil sampling shall also be conducted on any imported soil.

92. The applicant shall comply with the prevailing City standards and requirements at the time of construction.

93. The applicant shall install improvements (including off-site) to transition traffic and drainage flows from proposed to existing.

94. Comply with state law regarding waste management and the City’s Refuse Collection, Recycling and Disposal Ordinance.

95. Prior to occupancy, the applicant must complete all improvements per the accepted plans and approved conditions, and obtain acceptance for the improvements from the Public Works Department.

END OF CONDITIONS
Applicant Statement
I have read and accept responsibility for the Conditions of Approval. I agree to abide by and conform to the Conditions of Approval, any listed mitigation measures, and the provisions of the Loma Linda Municipal Code pertaining to the project.
__________________________________
Printed Name of Applicant
__________________________________
Signature of Project Applicant
__________________________________
Date

BARTON ROAD APARTMENTS

PROJECT
California Environmental Quality Act
Compliance Memorandum
Prepared for City of Loma Linda
Loma Linda, California
Prepared by Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Dr S Ste 100,
San Bernardino, CA 92408
April 2025
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda i April 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................4 PROJECT SETTING ......................................................................................................................4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................5 FINDINGS FROM THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS .........................................................................6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................13 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................15 AIR QUALITY ...............................................................................................................................16 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................27 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND PALEONTOLOGY ................................................................31 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...............................................................................................................34 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND FIRE HAZARDS ..................................................................36 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................38 LAND USE ....................................................................................................................................40 FLOODING HAZARDS ................................................................................................................41 NOISE............................................................................................................................................42 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................47 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ........................................................................................48 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................................................................50 PARKS AND RECREATION .......................................................................................................51 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................52

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 REGIONAL MAP.................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN ...........................................................................................................................7 ATTACHMENT A CALEEMOD OUTPUTS.................................................................................54 ATTACHMENT B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT .............................................55 ATTACHMENT C PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/PALEO ...........................56 ATTACHMENT D WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................57 ATTACHMENT E TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................58 Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 1

PURPOSE
Archimetrics (“Applicant”) is requesting the City of Loma Linda’s consideration to approve Precise Plan of Design (PPD) - P21-247 to develop a 5.15-acre site with a 66-unit residential apartment complex with related amenities. The Project Site is located north of Barton Road, east of California Street and west of New Jersey Street (see Figure 1 Regional Map and Figure 2 Vicinity Map). The Project Site occurs within the incorporated area of the City of Loma Linda. The City’s General Plan was established through the authority granted to the City of Loma Linda by California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 (Plans). The Proposed Project is an allowable land use within the High Density Residential (R3) Zoning District.

The purpose of this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance Memorandum, prepared under CEQA Section 15183, is to determine whether the environmental impacts of the Project were previously addressed and evaluated in the City of Loma Linda General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH NO. 2003101159 (herein referred to as General Plan Update EIR), and to determine if any of the conditions requiring subsequent environmental documentation consistent with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 are present.

Environmental documents, such as relevant technical analyses, have been prepared as part of this CEQA Section 15183 review.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Section 15183(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states as follows:

CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

Additionally, Section 15183(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:

This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or a general plan of a local agency.
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 1

BARTON ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT
City of Loma Linda, California Mile
0 1

PROJECT SITE

REGIONAL VICINITY

LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 2

BARTON ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT
City of Loma Linda, California Feet
0 6000

PROJECT SITE

VICINITY MAP
Barton Rd
California St
Orange A ` ve
New Jersey St New Jersey St
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 4
Regarding peculiar impacts, Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:

If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project and was addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR is not required for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

Additionally, Section 15183(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:

An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City’s General Plan is a regulatory plan that provides the vision and zoning for parcels within the Planning Area. Subsequent tract or parcel maps, development agreements, local public work projects, zoning text or map amendments, and any action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval must be consistent with the General Plan.

The City’s General Plan was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Pursuant to State and Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Loma Linda prepared an EIR.

The General Plan Update EIR was also utilized to evaluate and identify mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of those impacts determined to be significant. The environmental impacts evaluated in the General Plan EIR concerned several subject areas, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population, housing, and employment, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

PROJECT SETTING

PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Site occurs within the High Density Residential Area (R3) Land Use District. The 5.15- acre Project Site is composed of two parcels (Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 0292-162-21 and 0292- 162-22) and is located north of Barton Road, south of Orange Street, east of California Street and west of New Jersey Street. The Project Site is within a developed area of the City. Regional access to the Project Site would be provided via Interstate (I-10) Freeway, approximately one-mile north of the Project Site.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses consist of residential development to the north and east, commercial development to the west, and agricultural lands to the south following Barton Road. Table 1, Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 5
Surrounding Land Uses summarizes the Project Site and surround properties land use and zoning designations as well as existing uses.

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Land Use/Zoning Existing Uses
Project Site High Density Residential (R3) Vacant
North High Density Residential (R3) Multi-Family Residential South General Commercial (C2) Agriculture
East High Density Residential (R3) Multi-Family Residential West General Commercial (C2) Commercial

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Title: PPD – P21-247
Lead Agency Name: City of Loma Linda Community Development Department Address: 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, CA 92354
Contact Person: Lorena A. Matarrita
Phone Number: (909) 799-2830
Project Sponsor: Jay Nelson
Address: 1177 Idaho Street
Redlands, CA 92374
(909) 322-7582
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (R3) Zoning: High Density Residential (R3)
Project Description: The applicant is requesting the entitlement of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD - P21-247) to allow for the development of a 66-unit residential apartment complex in the City of Loma Linda. The Project Site consists of two undeveloped parcels (APN 0292-162-21 and 22) totaling approximately 5.15 acres. The site is currently designated and zoned R3. The Proposed Project is an allowable use under the current land use designation.

The Proposed Project includes: four (4) three-story buildings with varying types and sizes of apartment units, a clubhouse with rental office, community room, childcare, and gym, and community recreational spaces (i.e., open lawn, community garden, outdoor amphitheater area, playground, barbeque grills with picnic tables). Total lot coverage for the Proposed Project includes a building area of 23,183 square-feet, a landscape area of 99,232 square feet and paving/parking Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 6
area of 101,865 square feet. The 66 apartment units would be a mix of one-bedroom and twobedroom units. Access to the Project Site would be provided by a main driveway along Barton Road and secondary access would be provided along the western property boundary (See Figure 3-Site Plan). The Project would be consistent with the land uses analyzed within the General Plan Update EIR and would be required to comply with all applicable development standards identified in the City’s Municipal Code.

FINDINGS FROM THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS
The General Plan Update EIR identified the following environmental impacts as less than significant, no impact, or potentially significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) or mitigation identified in the General Plan Update EIR:

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
⚫ The development of structures and facilities would occur on vacant parcels and would be consistent with the policies outlined in the proposed General Plan. [Impact 4.2.6.1]
⚫ Many of the structures within the City, including the multiple historic structures, contribute to the City’s sense of character. The proposed General Plan allows for more development in all land uses, including business park, commercial, and residential. [Impact 4.2.6.2
⚫ Development in accordance with the General Plan and implementation of General Plan polices, would not generate substantial additional light and glare. [Impact

4.2.6.3]
Air Quality
⚫ The General Plan would not generate odor or toxic air contaminants. Individual development within the City that has the potential to generate odors or toxic air contaminants will be evaluated when project-specific information is available. ⚫ San Bernardino County and the City of Loma Linda are in attainment with the State CO standards.
⚫ Long-term air emission impacts will occur from stationary sources related to the estimated development of the General Plan. [Impact 4.3.4.3] ⚫ The General Plan Update would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). [Impact

4.3.4.4]
Biological Resources
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan would have an adverse impact on listed, proposed, or candidate species or the loss of habitat occupied by such

LILBURN

C O R P O R AT I O N
FIGURE 3

BARTON ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT
City of Loma Linda, California SITE PLAN
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 8
⚫ species; policies and the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.4.4.1].
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan would cause fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement. General Plan policies and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.4.4.3] ⚫ Implementation of the General Plan would result in the direct loss of oak trees; implementation of policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.4.4.4] ⚫ Implementation of the General Plan could affect the proposed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and/or the San Bernardino County MSHCP, which is in the initial planning stage. [Impact 4.4.4.5] CulturalResources and Paleontology
⚫ Buildout of the General Plan could impact paleontological resources. With adherence to the proposed General Plan policies and implementation of the proposed mitigation, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant impact [Impact 4.5.5.1]
⚫ Grading activities during development consistent with the General Plan could potentially disturb human remains. Implementation of the General Plan policies and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.5.5.2] ⚫ Future development in the City consistent with the General Plan could impact known and unknown historical resources. Implementation of General Plan policies would ensure potential impacts are less than significant. [Impact 4.5.5.3] Geology and Soils
⚫ Future development may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from development on or adjacent to the San Jacinto Fault and/or undetected earthquake fault zones. With the implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures, the impacts related to fault rupture will be reduced to less than significant. [Impact 4.6.4.1] ⚫ Future development may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from ground shaking. Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development under the General Plan. General Plan policies and mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to ground shaking to less than significant. [Impact 4.6.4.2]
⚫ Portions of Loma Linda are susceptible to liquefaction; future General Plan development would increase the potential of structures/facilities in areas susceptible to liquefaction. Implementation of policies and mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant [Impact 4.6.4.3] ⚫ Future proposed General Plan development within the Planning Area would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to subsidence. Implementation of General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.6.4.4]
⚫ Future development within the Planning Area would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to slope failure.

Adherence to General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 9
[Impact 4.6.4.5]
⚫ Areas exposed during development activities would be prone to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Adherence to General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.6.4.6]
⚫ Future development within the Planning Area would increase potential placement of residential and non-residential structures within areas susceptible to damage resulting from collapsible and expansive soils. Adherence to General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.6.4.7] HazardousMaterials and Fire Hazards
⚫ Development pursuant to the General Plan could uncover previously unknown hazardous materials contamination from historical use of property. No mitigation measures beyond the policies in the General Plan are required [Impact 4.7.4.1] ⚫ New land uses in the Planning Area may result in additional sources of hazardous materials exposing residents/employees to hazardous materials. Implementation of General Plan policies, the impacts to the community of new hazardous users would be reduced to less than significant. [Impact 4.7.4.2] ⚫ Future development could interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of General Plan policies would ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant. [Impact 4.7.4.3] ⚫ Land uses in the Planning Area may result in exposing people and structures to wildland fire areas. Adherence to General Plan policies would ensure potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.7.8.1] Water Resources
⚫ Buildout of the General Plan may result in the loss of water recharge areas and hillside watershed resources. Adherence to General Plan policies and mitigation would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.8.4.2] ⚫ Implementation of the General Plan will increase the demand for water services such that it exceeds the existing and planned facilities. Adherence to General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with the distribution of water to a less than a significant level. [Impact 4.8.4.3]
⚫ Future development during construction and post-construction uses, may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No mitigation measures beyond the policy identified in the proposed General Plan Update are required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.8.4.4] ⚫ The new demand for water may affect the water available for emergency fire flow.

With the General Plan policy in place, and the mitigation measure, the impacts on fire flow from the implementation of the General Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.8.4.5]
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 10
LandUse
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan would change the predominant agricultural land use pattern in the eastern section of the Planning Area thus changing the predominant character of the area. Policies within the General Plan [Impact 4.9.4.1] would ensure potential impacts are less than significant. ⚫ Buildout of the General Plan would result in changes to existing land use designations in certain areas which could negatively affect the existing pattern of development as well as the surrounding uses. Implementation of General Plan policies would ensure potential impacts are less than significant. [Impact 4.9.4.2] ⚫ Proposed land use designations may be incompatible with the “draft” Airport Land Use Commission’s plan for the influence area. Adherence to General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. [Impact 4.9.4.3] Mineral Resources
⚫ No known mineral resources are located within the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources.
⚫ No locally important mineral resource recovery sites are located within the City.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed general Plan would not result in the loss of any such resources or recovery sites.

Flooding Hazards
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in exposure of people or structures to the impacts of flooding through the placement of structures in the 100–500-year floodplain. Implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation provided in the General Plan Update EIR, would reduce potential flooding impact to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.10.6.1] ⚫ Implementation of development in accordance with the General Plan may result in significant impacts related to existing drainage facilities. Implementation of General Plan policies, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level [Impact

4.10.6.2]
Noise
The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the San Bernardino International Airport and approximately 8 miles west of Redlands Municipal Airport. Due to the project’s distances from these airports, no significant noise impacts in terms of 24 hour averaged noise level, such as CNEL or Ldn, would occur in the City. Less than significant impacts would result.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 11
The General Plan buildout does not include any sources that would generate long-term vibrations that would be perceptible to humans at nearby sensitive receptors. Ground-borne vibration from passing trains is localized to areas within about 100 feet of the track. Existing residences closer than 100 feet from the train tracks will experience ground vibration that can be considered annoying but not damaging to structures. Less than significant impacts would result. ⚫ Noise levels from construction activities may result in noise levels reaching 91 dBA Lmax at off-site locations 50 feet from the site boundary. Implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation measures contained in the General Plan Update EIR, would reduce potential construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.11.5.1]
⚫ Buildout of the General Plan would result in potential project-related long-term vehicular noise that would affect sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to excessive traffic-related noise levels. Adherence to General Plan policies and mitigation measures provided in the General Plan Update EIR, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. [Impact 4.11.5.2] ⚫ New development associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could expose existing and/or new sensitive uses to stationary noise sources, such as industrial and/or commercial uses. Proposed General Plan policies reduce the impacts of stationary noise sources on sensitive land uses, and include mechanisms to ensure appropriate review and placement of noise reduction requirements on new development. As a result, impacts from stationary noise sources will be reduced to less than significant levels. [Impact 4.11.5.3] ⚫ Although the proposed General Plan would not result in potential project-related increases in railroad noise, there could be new proposed sensitive land uses along and adjacent to the railroads that would be affected by high noise levels from railroad operations. [Impact 4.11.5.4]
Population and Housing
⚫ Build out of the City of Loma Linda due to implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and nonresidential structures, and associated infrastructure. A General Plan is, by definition, growth inducing in that it provides a plan for accommodating future increased in population, housing, and employment. It also provides a plan for ensuring that adequate infrastructure is available to serve that growth.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan will not exceed the housing and population projections for the City.
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in the displacement of a substantial number of residential units and persons. ⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in employment growth within the City exacerbating the jobs-to-housing balance.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 12
Public Services and Utilities
⚫ Build out of the City of Loma Linda will result in a substantial increase in population and the development of residential and non-residential structures; thereby, increasing the need for fire emergency services and facilities. [Impact 4.13.1.1] ⚫ Increases in population and employment resulting from implementation of the General Plan would increase the need for police personnel, facilities, and/or support services. [Impact 4.13.2.1]
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in the need for additional school facilities. [Impact 4.13.3.1]
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased demand for library services and the need for additional library facilities within the City. [Impact

4.13.4.1]
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in increased demand for sewer service within the City. [Impact 4.13.5.1]
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased demand for solid waste services. [Impact 4.13.6.1]
⚫ Build out of the City will result in an increase in population, residential and nonresidential structures, potentially increasing the use of and need for electricity and/or natural gas. Due to the growth resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan, this increase would result in impacts on existing electrical or natural gas generation/transmission facilities. [Impact 4.13.7.1] Parks and Recreation
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in significant impacts to the availability adequate parkland and/or recreational facilities within the City. [Impact 4.15.4.1]
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan may result in the need for increased park maintenance and recreational programs and services. [Impact 4.15.4.2] The General Plan Update EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan area would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:

Aesthetics
⚫ No feasible mitigation measures exist to address the conversion of open space to urban land. Impacts resulting from the conversion of open space to urban land uses would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of the General Plan policies. [Impact 4.2.6.4]
Air Quality
⚫ The General Plan Update would cause construction-generated criteria air pollutant Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 13
or precursor emissions to exceed South Coast AQMD recommended thresholds. [Impact 4.3.4.1]
⚫ The General Plan Update would result in growth and an increase in the daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and criteria pollutant emissions to exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD [Impact 4.3.4.2]
Biological Resources
⚫ Implementation of the General Plan would cause direct loss of sensitive critical habitat or cause habitat fragmentation resulting in isolation of sensitive habitat patches which are of limited biological value. [Impact 4.4.4.2 ] Water Resources
⚫ Development pursuant to the General Plan would increase the existing demand for water and thereby reduce water availability to, or interfere with, existing users of well water. Even with the proposed General Plan policies, the implementation of the General Plan would have a significant unavoidable effect on the water supply. [Impact

4.8.4.1]
Transportation and Circulation
⚫ Implementation of the proposed General Plan would facilitate the development of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and other types of projects that would result in increased traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes could, in turn, result in congestion along area roadways and the I-10 freeway. [Impact

4.14.4.1]

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
This CEQA Compliance Memorandum will serve as the City’s environmental review of the Project as required under CEQA. This analysis is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Project in comparison to the General Plan Update EIR. This memorandum includes adetermination as to whether the Proposed Project would result in any new and peculiar impacts such as project characteristics which may be inconsistent with uniformly applied development policies or standards adopted by the City.

Additionally, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project will be analyzed for the following:
⚫ Project consistency with density standards established within the General Plan; ⚫ Any peculiar effects which would be specific to the Project or Project Site; Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 14
⚫ Potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts not originally discussed in the General Plan Update EIR; and
⚫ Previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information, may generate a more severe adverse impact than discussed in General Plan Update EIR.

The study area for the General Plan is inclusive of the City and the City’s sphere of influence (SOI).

All areas surrounding the Project Site, along with potential cumulative impact areas are within the City or the City’s SOI. Therefore, the Project analysis would not generate cumulative impacts or offsite impacts in areas which were not accounted for in the General Plan Update EIR.

Furthermore, this analysis will rely on and incorporate any applicable COAs presented and approved through the General Plan Update EIR. Each applicable COA or mitigation measure is listed at the end of each environmental topic discussion.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 15

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Affected Views to Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
Impact 4.2.6.1 Build out of the proposed General Plan would increase the development of urban uses, causing a loss of open space and aesthetic resources. This could significantly alter existing and future public views and view corridors. New development may block views of the Badlands and the South Hills.

Impact 4.2.6.2 Increase residential densities, mixed-use developments, and business park developments may be incongruous with the City’s existing character and visual qualities. [Threshold AE-3]
Light and Glare
Impact 4.2.6.3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the effects of light and glare upon existing residential uses. New light and glare would be created by the addition of residences and commercial establishments within the proposed General Plan. The most significant glare would be created by commercial, office, and institutional uses throughout the proposed General Plan area, especially in association with outdoor parking that may be lit at night and that would be visible from roadways.

Loss of Open Space Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 4.2.6.4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in conversion of open space areas to urban land use.

Project Analysis
The City of Loma Linda occurs in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County, along the northernly foot of the Badland Hills. The San Bernardino Mountains and Badland Hills are both considered natural landmarks. Views can be afforded from most of the City and provide a backdrop for the community.

There are no state-designated scenic highways within the City of Loma Linda or its SOI. Therefore, the Project Site does not border, nor is it in proximity of a scenic highway.1 The Project Site occurs approximately one-mile north of a scenic resource (i.e., Loma Linda Hills). Adjacent land uses include commercial, residential and vacant land. The Project would not impair the visibility of a scenic vista as seen from adjacent uses. Additionally, the Project would be developed in accordance with requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (e.g., height restrictions, setbacks, signage, landscaping).
1 CalTrans; State Scenic Highways System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (Accessed December 12, 2024)
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 16
Furthermore, there are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the Project Site boundaries. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to have a less than significant impact on Aesthetic Resources.

The Project would not generate aesthetic or visual resource impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Land Use Element Policies: 2.2.3.1.c, 2.2.3.1.j, 2.2.3.1.m, 2.2.3.1.q, 2.2.5.4.a, 2.2.5.4.b, 3.1.7.1.c.

Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 9.2.9.1, 9.2.9.1.a, 9.2.9.1.e, 9.2.9.2, 9.2.9.2.a-i.

Community Design Element Policies: 3.1.1.1.q, 3.1.6.1, 3.1.6.1.a-c, 3.1.6.1.e-i, 3.1.7.1, 3.1.7.1.c,

3.1.7.1.f, 3.1.8.1, 3.1.8.1.d, 3.1.9.1, 3.1.9.1.l, 3.1.9.2, 3.1.9.2.a-d, 3.1.9.2.h, 3.1.9.2.l, 3.1.9.2.m.

Mitigation:

No mitigation is required.

AIR QUALITY
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR and CalEEMod Outputs. See Attachment A for project-specific CalEEMod Output data.

Local Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Impacts - The City of Loma Linda and the County of San Bernardino are in attainment of the Federal and State CO standards. The ambient CO concentrations monitored at area monitoring stations have low to moderate CO levels that have sufficient margins before the standards would be exceeded. It is not anticipated that future ambient CO concentrations, with the General Plan, would violate either the State or Federal CO standards. No mitigation measures are required.

Odors and Toxic Air Contaminants - Implementation of the General Plan will not in and of itself generate odor or toxic air contaminants. Individual development within the City that has the potential to generate odors or toxic air contaminants will be evaluated when project specific information is available. The SCAQMD Rule 1401 will need to be followed for permit application for any facility that has the potential to emit toxic air contaminants. No additional control measures are required.

Construction Related Particulate (PM10) Emissions (Significant and Unavoidable) Impact 4.3.4.1. Air quality impacts would occur during construction-related activities associated with individual projects, including grading and equipment exhaust. Major sources of fugitive dust are a result of grading and site preparation during construction by vehicles and equipment and generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. Blowing dust is also of concern in the dry weather where PM10 standards are exceeded by soil disturbance during grading, and vehicular travel over unpaved roads.

Vehicular Emissions Significant and Unavoidable
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 17
Impact 4.3.4.2. Development associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an overall increase in mobile source emissions within the City which may exceed SCAQMD Air Quality Standards.

Stationary Source Emissions
Impact 4.3.4.3. Long-term air emission impacts will occur from stationary sources related to the estimated development proposed through implementation of the proposed General Plan.

Conflict with Regional Air Quality Plans
Impact 4.3.4.4. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

Project Analysis
The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by the SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the State and federal ambient air quality standards. The Basin is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most recent AQMP (AQMP 2022) was developed to address the requirements for meeting this standard and was adopted by the SCAQMD on December 2, 2022. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including transportation control measures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. Consistency with the AQMP 2022 for general development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or employment projections.

The Project Site is located within the City’s General Plan Planning area and is designated R3. The Proposed Project does not include a General Plan Amendment, nor a Zone Change and is therefore consistent with the AQMP. The emissions associated with the Proposed Project would not result in a conflict or obstruction to the implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, Project emissions are within those accounted for in the AQMP and no significant inconsistency with the AQMP would occur. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Construction Emissions
The Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions were screened using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022 prepared in collaboration with the SCAQMD (see Attachment A). CalEEMod was utilized to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rules 402 and 403 for fugitive dust by default as required during construction. The criteria pollutants screened for include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine and respirable particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Two of the analyzed pollutants, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 18
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would have the potential to generate air emissions and toxic air contaminant emissions. The resulting emissions generated during construction of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2
Construction Emissions Summer Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 Max 3.39 31.7 31.5 0.05 9.26 5.25
2026 Max 23.5 10.3 16.5 0.02 1.06 0.51
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Summer Construction Emissions.

Table 3
Construction Emissions Winter Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 Max 1.34 10.9 16.0 0.02 1.12 0.56
2026 Max 1.27 10.3 15.7 0.02 1.06 0.51
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Winter Construction Emissions.

Notes:

Operational Emissions
The operational emissions are categorized as energy (generation and distribution of energy to the end use), area (operational use of the project), and mobile (vehicle trips). Operational emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2022 and are listed in Table 3 and Table 4, below.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 19
Table 3
Summer Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.62 1.25 11.7 0.03 2.38 0.62
Area 1.96 0.04 3.74 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 <0.005 0.02 0.02
Total Emissions (lbs/day) 3.60 1.57 15.5 0.03 2.41 0.64 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Table 4
Winter Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.50 1.34 9.99 0.03 2.38 0.62
Area 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 <0.005 0.02 0.02
Total Emissions (lbs/day) 3.15 1.62 10.1 0.03 2.41 0.64 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Notes:

ROG = Reactive Organic Gases NOx = Nitrogen Oxides
CO = Carbon Monoxide SO2 = Sulfur Dioxides PM = Particulate Matter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, both summer and winter operational emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds. The Proposed Project does not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds either during construction or operational activities. The Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

The Project would not generate air quality impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Greenhouse Gas
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 20
the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

The Project’s GHG emissions were screened using CalEEMod version 2022. The CalEEMod outputs used to estimate construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions are listed in Table 5 and Table 6 below.

Table 5
Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions
(Metric Tons Per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N2O R1
2025 210 0.01 <0.005 0.06
2026 232 0.01 0.01 0.09
SCAQMD MTCO2e Thresholds 3,000
Total MTCO2e 446
Construction amortized 14.87
Source: CalEEMod 2022
Based on the project’s CalEEMod (version 2022) results, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 446 metric tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s construction emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e annual screening threshold defined by SCAQMD. The operational mobile emissions were calculated using a Traffic Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles traveled Screening prepared by Ganddini Group Inc. on December 16, 2024. The Screening determined that the Proposed Project would generate approximately 445 daily trips per day. Operational emissions results from CalEEMod were calculated and are shown in Table 6.

Table 6
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons Per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N2O R1
Mobile 441 0.03 0.02 0.68
Area 1.14 <0.005 <0.005 --
Energy 107 0.01 <0.005 --
Water 5.44 0.09 <0.005 --
Waste 4.35 0.43 0.00 --
Refrigeration -- -- -- 0.08
Construction Amortized over 30 years 14.87
SCAQMD MTCO2e Thresholds 3,000
Total MTCO2e 581
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod 2022
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 21
As shown in Table 6, the Proposed Project’s operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s screening threshold. The Proposed Projects GHG emissions for both construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e annually. Therefore, no significant greenhouse gas impacts are identified or anticipated.

The Project would not generate GHG emissions that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Energy
The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) provides electrical service in the Planning Area. SCE owns, operates, and maintains both above- and below-ground facilities in the Planning Area. Natural gas services are provided to the Planning Area by the Southern California Gas Company (SGC). SGC owns, operates, and maintains underground gas lines in most of the public streets located throughout the Planning Area. Gas lines can be extended to outlying areas on demand, in accordance with the Company’s policies and the California Public Utilities Commission.

Fuel
During construction of the Proposed Project, transportation energy consumption would be dependent on the type of vehicles used, number of vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Temporary transportation fuel use such as gasoline and diesel during construction would result from the use of delivery vehicles and trucks, construction equipment, and construction employee vehicles. Additionally, most construction equipment during grading would be powered by gas or diesel. Based on output from CalEEMod v. 2022, the Proposed Project construction activities would consume an estimated 33,411.16 gallons of diesel fuel for operation of heavy-duty equipment. Tables 7 through 10 show the modeled fuel consumption for all construction activities.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 22
Table 7
Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Hours
per Day Horse
Power
Load
Factor
Total Fuel
Consumption (gal
diesel fuel)1
Demolition 20 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 226.64 20 Rubber Tired Dozer 2 8 367 0.4 2485.03
20 Excavators 3 8 36 0.38 386.10
Site Preparation 10 Rubber Tired Dozer 3 8 367 0.4 1863.77 10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 584.80
Grading 20 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 513.60
20 Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 128.70
20 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 8 367 0.4 1242.52
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 877.20
230 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 5323.05
230 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 1120.87
Building
Construction
230 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 9064.54
230 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 2239.57
230 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 8826.84
Paving 20 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 640.12
20 Pavers Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 602.86
20 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 257.40
Architectural
Coating
20 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
125.31
Total Fuel Used in Gallons 33,411.16
Source: CalEEMod 2022
(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonrod Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b. July 2018. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf.

Table 8
Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)1
Demolition 20 15 18.5 231.25
Site Preparation 10 17.5 18.5 134.89
Grading 20 15 18.5 231.25
Building Construction 230 47.5 18.5 8421.35
Paving 20 15 18.5 231.25
Architectural Coating 20 9.5 18.5 146.45
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 9,396.44
Source: Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022 defaults.
(1) United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-anddata/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntentire2018q4.pdf.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 23
Table 9
Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition 20 -- 10.2 0.0
Site Preparation 10
-- 10.2 0.0
Grading 20 -- 10.2 0.0
Building
Construction
230

7.06 10.2 2,238.21
Paving 20 -- 10.2 0.0
Architectural
Coating
20 -- 10.2

0.0 Total Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption 2,238.21 Source: Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022 defaults.

United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018.

Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and-data/national-transportationstatistics/223001/ntentire2018q4.pdf.

Table 10
Construction Hauling Trucks Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition 20 0 20 0.00
Site Preparation
10 0 20 0.00
Grading 20 0 20 0.00
Building
Construction 230 0 20 0.00
Paving 20 0 20 0.00
Architectural
Coating 20 0 20 0.0
Total Construction Hauling Trucks Consumption 0.0
Source: Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022 defaults.

United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browsestatistical-products-and-data/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntentire2018q4.pdf.

As shown in Table 8, all construction worker trips would be from light duty vehicles. It is estimated that 9,396 gallons of fuel would be consumed. As shown in Table 9 and 10, fuel consumption from construction vendor (material delivery) trips and construction hauling trucks would be 2,238 gallons and zero gallons, respectively. Fuel consumption from construction workers, haul trucks, and vendor fuel consumption was based on CalEEMod’s default data for vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Construction represents a single-event diesel and gasoline fuel demand and would not require Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 24
continuous or permanent commitment of these fuel resources. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require the use of additional energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.

Post construction activities of the Proposed Project would include fuel consumption from resident vehicle trips. The Proposed Project’s VMT was modeled with an automobile fuel efficiency of 24 miles per gallon. The Proposed Project would result in an estimated 50,683 gallons of fuel consumption per year based on 1,216,397 miles driven. 2
Trip generation and VMT generated by the Proposed Project are considered less than significant. The Proposed Project does not include uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive or wasteful vehicle trips and VMT or associated wasteful vehicle energy consumption. It is not expected to result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities.

Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project Site. The Project Site is currently vacant and does not currently demand electricity. The Proposed Project would establish a 66-unit apartment complex. The CalEEMod output estimates that the Proposed Project would have an electrical demand of 0.309 gigawatt hours (GWh) annually. According to the most recent data from the California Energy Commission, the residential sector of the SCE planning area consumed 39,400.22 GWh of electricity in 2022.2 The electricity demand of the Proposed Project represents approximately 0.008 percent of the overall 2022 SCE residential consumption. The demand is considered less than significant compared to the overall residential consumption as provided by the California Energy Commission. Additionally,the Proposed Project would include solar panels to help meet electrical demands and would therefore be less reliant on SCE. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of service.

Natural Gas
The Project Site is located within the service area of Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas). Proposed Project’s estimated annual natural gas demand is 10,993.33 therms. The Proposed Project will create a permanent increase in the demand for natural gas. According to the most recent data from California Energy Commission, the natural gas consumption of SoCal Gas’s residential sector was 2,275,170,830 therms in 2022.3 The Proposed Project’s estimated annual natural gas consumption compared to the 2022 annual natural gas consumption of the overall residential sector in the SoCal Gas Planning Area, would account for approximately 0.00048 percent of the total natural gas consumption. Therefore, projected natural gas demand would not significantly impact SoCal Gas’s level of service.

The Project would not generate energy impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.
2 CalEEMod output based on trips generated; represents modeled estimation, not actual consumption. 3California Energy Commission. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed January 27, 2025.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 25
The Project would not generate air quality impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Land Use Element Policies: 2.2.5.1.b, 2.2.5.2.d, 2.2.5.3.b, 2.2.7.3, 2.2.7.3.a & c, 2.2.8.1.c-d,

2.2.8.2.e, 2.2.8.3.a & c, 2.2.8.4.a, 2.2.8.4.h-i, 2.2.8.4. n.

Community Design Element Policy: 3.1.9.1.c.

Economic Development Element Policies: 4.6.2.b., 4.6.2.j-k.

Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 9.3.6, 9.3.6.a-d.

Transportation and Circulation Element Policies: 6.10.1.b-d, 6.10.1.l-m, 6.10.2.a-g, 6.10.3.a-d.

The following mitigation measures as listed in the General Plan Update EIR4, are applicable to the Project and shall become Conditions of Approval for the Project. The mitigation measures are as follows:

4.3.4.1 A. The following are the applicable SCAQMD Rule 403 Measures:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.

4.3.4.1 B. Implement the following dust suppression measures in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
• Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
• All streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.
4 Although Mitigation Measures 4.3.4.1A and B are specific to energy, they were included in the Air Quality Section of the General Plan Update EIR, and are provided herein for consistency.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 26
• All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.

4.3.4.1C. Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment and Vehicles Exhaust Emissions.
• The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
• The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric- or diesel-powered equipment, in lieu of gasoline-powered engines, where feasible.
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
• The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
• The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.

4.3.4.3A. Encourage the use of building materials/methods, which reduce emissions.

4.3.4.3B. Encourage the use of efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, and boiler units.

4.3.4.3C. Encourage centrally heated facilities to utilize automated time clocks or occupant sensors to control heating.

4.3.4.3D. Require residential building construction to comply with energy use guidelines detailed in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

4.3.4.3E. Require stationary air pollution sources to comply with applicable air district rules and control measures.

4.3.4.3F. Adopt incentives and/or regulations to enact energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.

4.13.7.1A. The City shall review all development proposals prior to the approval of development plans to guarantee that sufficient energy resources and facilities are available to supply adequate energy to the proposed project and associated uses.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 27

4.13.7.1B. The City shall review all development proposals prior to approval to guarantee that energy conservation and efficiency standards of Title 25 are met and are incorporated into the design of future development.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR, and Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Jennings Environmental LLC, Dated February 2025 (see Attachment B).

Potentially Significant Impacts
Impacts to Sensitive Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Impact 4.4.4.1. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would have an adverse impact on listed, proposed, or candidate species, or the loss of habitat occupied by such species.

Loss of Critical Habitat Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 4.4.4.2. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause direct loss of sensitive critical habitat or cause habitat fragmentation resulting in isolation of sensitive habitat patches which are of limited biological value.

Impacts to Migratory Wildlife Corridors
Impact 4.4.4.3. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Oak Trees
Impact 4.4.4.4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in the direct loss of oak trees. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plans
Impact 4.4.4.5. Implementation of the General Plan could affect the proposed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and/or the San Bernardino County MSHCP, which is in the initial planning stage
Project Analysis
According to General Plan Update EIR Figure 4.4.1, the Project Site occurs in an area identified as being urban and disturbed. Urban and disturbed areas are lands where natural vegetation has been largely destroyed by human activity, other than agriculture. It includes land covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, lawns, golf courses, etc., as well as areas cleared of vegetation or otherwise significantly disturbed by machinery. As concluded in the General Plan Update EIR, the potential for any sensitive species to occur in the developed areas is very low, except where future development may juxtapose against sensitive habitat.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 28
Jurisdictional Features
As part of the February 2025 Biological Resource Assessment (BRA), a Jurisdictional Delineation was prepared. A general assessment of jurisdictional waters regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was conducted for the Project Site. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The State of California (State) regulates the discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. The assessment was conducted by a desktop survey through the USGS National Hydrography Dataset for hydrological connectivity.

Waters of the State
The Project Site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Beneficial uses of the on-site basin include municipal and domestic supply, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat; all of which are considered intermittent beneficial uses (RWQCB, 1994). None of the waters within the Project Site are listed as impaired by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

The RWQCB has authority over the discharge of dredged or fill material in Waters of the State (WOS) under Section 401 CWA as well as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The basin meets the definition of WOS under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. Table 11 below details the jurisdictional extent of the WOS on-site.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602 - State Lake and/or Streambed CDFW asserts jurisdiction over any drainage feature that contains a definable bed and bank or associated riparian vegetation. The Project area was surveyed with 100 percent visual coverage and the drainage channel on-site is considered jurisdictional under CDFW. Table 11 below details the extent of CDFW jurisdiction within the channel.

Table 11 – Jurisdiction Areas
Feature Bank-Full
width (feet)
Length
(feet)
Max Channel
Depth (feet)
Regional Board
jurisdiction
{WOS} (acres)
CDFW jurisdiction
(acres)
On-Site Basin 394 N/A 5 1.58 1.99
Total 1.58 1.99
The proposed basin on-site does meet the definitions of Section 1600 of the State of California Fish and Game Code (FGC) under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, and “Waters of the State” as described in the PorterCologne Water Quality Act under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. Therefore, permits from each regulatory agency will be required for any impacts to the 1.99 acres of CDFW jurisdictional waters and 1.58 acres of RWQCB jurisdictional waters.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 29
To ensure potential impacts to Waters of the State are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation shall become a COA for the Project:

Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Community Development Department shall ensure that the Project Applicant has obtained a 401 Certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board, and a 1602 permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Conservation Plan
According to the BRA prepared for the Project, the Project Site is not mapped within an area for wildlife movement. Additionally, the Project site is not within or adjacent to a habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed Project will not have an impact on any current wildlife corridors or habitat conservation plans.

Designated Critical Habitat
As concluded in the BRA, the Project Site is not located within any USFWS designated Critical Habitat.

Special Status Species
Existing Conditions - The vegetation on-site consists of ruderal vegetation with patchy bare ground.

The site showed signs of routine maintenance in the form of mowing and discing. The minimal vegetation in the basin and on the site was patchy and did not offer any habitat for any sensitive species. The neighboring parcels (north, east, and west) are all developed and the parcel to south is routinely mowed or disced.

Burrowing Owl – Candidate Endangered (State) and CDFW-SSC The Project Site is highly disturbed with compacted soils. The conditions present onsite are not suitable for Burrowing Owl (BUOW). The assessment survey was structured to detect BUOW, which has been observed in the near vicinity of the Project Site (within 5 miles). The survey consisted of walking transects spaced to provide 100% visual coverage of the Project Site. The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area. No BUOW pellets, feathers, whitewash or suitable burrows were found. No burrowing owl individuals were observed.

Findings: This species is considered absent from the Project Site and no suitable habitat for this species occurs. Therefore, no further surveys are warranted.

Nesting Birds
The immediate surrounding area does contain suitable habitat for nesting birds (i.e., mature shrubs and tall trees). As such the Project is subject to the following nesting bird regulations.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This Act implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The Act has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The Act prohibits the take including killing, Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 30
capturing, selling, trading, and transport of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

California Fish and Game Code
The Project Site is also subject to Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3503 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto”. And Section 3503.5 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant there to”.

As such the following mitigation shall become a COA to ensure potential impacts to nesting birds are reduced to a less than significant level:

Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys prior to project‐related disturbance. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance.

The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

Implementation of the above-listed Conditions of Approval would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds associated with implementation of the Proposed Project to a less than significant level.

The Project would not generate biological resource impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Land Use Element Policies: 2.2.3.1.c, 2.2.3.1.g, 2.2.3.1.m Community Design Element Policies: 3.1.9.2, 3.1.9.2.b, 3.1.9.2.d-f, 3.1.9.2.l.

Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 9.2.9.1.a, 9.2.9.2, 9.2.9.2.a-e, 9.2.9.2, 9.4.4.a-e.

The following mitigation measure as listed in the General Plan Update EIR is applicable to the Project and was satisfied. The mitigation measure is as follows:

4.4.4.1A. Require the preparation of biological reports in compliance with standards established by the City of Loma Linda for development related uses that require discretionary approval to assess the impacts of such development and provide mitigation for impacts to biological resources. The report must be prepared by a qualified biologist; the City Community Development Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 31
specific project; the report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents, specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, and property owner. In addition, the report must include the following:
a. Specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos);
b. Information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects);
c. A description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions; d. A description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements;
e. An assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation; f. A list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND PALEONTOLOGY
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR, and Phase I Archaeological Assessment prepared by BFSA on November 15, 2024 (Attachment C).

Destruction of a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site Impact 4.5.5.1. Buildout within now vacant unincorporated areas of the City will result in an increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Therefore, development as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan could potentially destroy directly or indirectly a unique paleontological resource or site.

Unknown Buried Human Remains
Impact 4.5.5.2. Buildout within now vacant areas of the City will result in an increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure.

Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Development allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could have the potential to disturb buried human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and buried archaeological resources.

Adverse Change in the Significance of an Historical Resource Impact 4.5.5.3. Build-out within now vacant areas of the City will result in an increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure.

Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 32
of vacant land and possible conversion of existing structures into various land uses (e.g., historic homes into office space). Development allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could cause the destruction of or loss of an historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.

Project Analysis
A Phase I Archeological Assessment, dated November 14, 2024, was prepared for the Project by BFSA Environmental Services. A summary of the findings is presented herein, and a copy of the report is available in Attachment C to this Compliance Memorandum.

The purpose of the investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the Project Site and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City’s environmental review process. The archaeological investigation included a review of an archaeological records search performed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project Site or in the immediate vicinity. The records search results identified two resources recorded within the Project Site that are no longer extant (SBR-10,877H and P-36-016417). Further, the records search also identified four studies that overlapped the Project Site. Based upon the records search, the Project Site was previously studied for cultural resources and subsequently graded for development. The grading occurred between October 2004 and May 2005 and was monitored by an archaeologist and Native American representatives from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The monitoring did not result in the recordation of any resources within the current Project Site boundaries. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was also requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and returned with positive results.

BFSA conducted an archaeological survey of the Project Site on October 23, 2024; no cultural resources were identified. The survey demonstrated that no remnants of sites SBR-10,877H and P36-016417 were present within the Project Site. Further, the survey results confirmed that the entire Project Site was previously graded. Due to the previous grading and results of the current survey, there is low potential for any significant cultural resources to be present or impacted by the Proposed Project. As concluded in the Archeological Assessment, no further study or archaeological monitoring is recommended. A copy of the report was submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.

Based on the conclusions of the General Plan Update EIR and the Phase I Archeological Assessment prepared for the Project Site, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. Implementation of General Plan Update EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.5.2B and

4.5.5.2C, as provided at the end of this section, would reduce impacts to any unknown cultural resources associated with implementation of the Project. Additionally, significant and unavoidable impacts were addressed in the City’s certification of the General Plan Update EIR Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations, and no new or significantly greater impacts beyond what was reviewed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

A paleontological resources assessment was completed for the Project Site. Paleontological resources are recognized as a significant nonrenewable resource in the General Plan. According to the General Plan Update EIR development of land within the city limits “could potentially destroy Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 33
directly or indirectly a unique paleontological resource or site. This is considered a significant impact.”
A paleontological collections and locality records search was conducted using prior record searches conducted by the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM), publications, and literature. The nearest-known Pleistocene fossil locality is located about eight miles northwest of the project in San Bernardino, consisting of the remains of a mammoth, recovered from old alluvial deposits during freeway construction work (SBCM locality [loc.] 1.102.1) (San Bernardino County Sun 1958). The San Timoteo Badlands, southeast of the project, are the location of multiple SBCM and LACM fossil localities from the Pleistocene to Pliocene-aged San Timoteo Formation and related deposits; however, most or all of these are several miles distant.

A paleontological survey of the Project Site was subsequently conducted on October 23, 2024. The field methodology employed included walking evenly spaced transects set approximately 20 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface. No paleontological resources, or evidence indicating the presence of paleontological resources, were identified.

The Project Site is mapped as Holocene alluvial fan deposits that generally do not have a high potential to yield fossils and therefore have a low paleontological sensitivity. The nearest discovery of fossils known to occur, are located approximately eight miles southwest from the Project Site. The City of Loma Linda has assigned an undetermined paleontological sensitivity to the geologic formation mapped at the Project Site, with a high or low rating to be determined in a paleontological resource study. The Paleontological Assessment prepared for the Project Site concluded that paleontological monitoring is not necessary. As a result, General Plan Update EIR Mitigation Measure

4.5.5.1A is not required at the Project Site, and a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program is not warranted.

The Project would not generate cultural resource or paleontology impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Land Use Element Policies: 2.2.8.4.d., 2.2.8.7.b.

Community Design Element Policies: 3.2.1, 3.2.1.a-f.

Public Services and Facilities Policies: 8.6.7.g.

Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 9.7.5, 9.7.5.a-f.

The following mitigation measures as listed in the General Plan Update EIR, are applicable to the Project and shall become Conditions of Approval for the Project. The mitigation measures are as follows:

4.5.5.2A. If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction activity, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner must be Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 34
notified within 24 hours.
a. If the Coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR
Ground Shaking
Impact 4.6.4.1: Fault Rupture – San Jacinto Fault. Future development permitted by the proposed General Plan may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from development on or adjacent to the San Jacinto Fault and/or as of yet undetected earthquake fault zones. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant.

Impact 4.6.4.2. The City of Loma Linda has and will continue to be subject to ground shaking resulting from activity on local and regional faults. Future development permitted by the proposed General Plan may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from this ground shaking hazard.

Liquefaction
Impact 4.6.4.3 Portions of Loma Linda are susceptible to liquefaction, a destructive secondary effect of strong seismic shaking. Future proposed General Plan development within Loma Linda would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in or near areas susceptible to liquefaction. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant.

Ground Subsidence
Impact 4.6.4.4. Soils susceptible to subsidence may be affected by a variety of natural or human activities, including earthquakes and the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Future proposed General Plan development within the Planning Area would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to subsidence.

Slope Failure
Impact 4.6.4.5. Future proposed General Plan development within the Planning Area would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to slope failure.

Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil
Impact 4.6.4.6 Implementation of the General Plan may result in impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Areas exposed during development activities would be prone to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. This is a potentially significant impact.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 35
Collapsible and Expansive Soils
Impact 4.6.4.7 Future development within the Planning Area would increase potential placement of residential and nonresidential structures within areas susceptible to damage resulting from collapsible and expansive soils. This is a potentially significant impact.

Project Analysis
As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, development under the General Plan would result in additional residential units and employment in the Planning Area, thereby exposing more structures and people to the effects of a fault rupture. The San Jacinto Fault runs through the southern portion of the City and an earthquake hazard zone has been established along this trace fault. To lessen potential impacts, policies and mitigation measures were identified in the General Plan Update EIR (provided at the end of this section), the implementation of which would reduce potential impacts associated with fault rupture hazards to a less than significant level.

The Project Site does not occur near the San Jacinto Fault Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (located approximately 2 ¼ miles southwest of the Project Site) and therefore would not be exposed to the hazards of fault rupture. Review of General Plan Update EIR Figure 4.6.2 indicates that the Project Site does not occur within an area identified as having liquefaction potential, soils susceptible to subsidence, expansive and collapsible soils, and slope failure. In addition, existing geological soil conditions have not changed since these topical areas were evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. As such, the Project would be subject to the same soil conditions (i.e., soil erosion and loss of topsoil) as evaluated in the General Plan Update and therefore the environmental impacts to geology and soils associated with the Project would be similar to what was previously analyzed under the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, implementation of the applicable General Plan policies and COAs identified in the General Plan Update EIR would apply to the Project and would reduce any potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project on geological and paleontological resources.

The Project would not generate geology and soils impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Public Health and Safety Element Policies: 10.1.2, 10.1.2.a-i, 10.3.2,10.3.2.a-d.

Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 9.2.9.1.c-d.

4.6.4.2A. As determined by the City, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential ground shaking impacts resulting from development. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation. The site-specific ground Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 36
shaking assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential ground shaking hazards.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND FIRE HAZARDS
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR
Unknown Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.7.4.1. Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result during the development process the uncovering of previously unknown hazardous materials contamination from historical use of property.

Hazardous Materials Exposure
Impact 4.7.4.2. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would introduce new land uses to the Planning Area that may result in additional sources of hazardous materials and potentially increase exposure of residents and employees to hazardous materials and hazardous waste.

Impair an Emergency Response Plan
Impact 4.7.4.3. Implementation of the proposed General Plan could interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Wildland Fire Hazards
Impact 4.7.8.1. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update provides for land uses in the Planning Area that may result in exposing people and structures to wildland fire areas.

Project Analysis
The Project Site is currently vacant and no demolition would occur on-site. Construction of the Proposed Project would require the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of limited quantities of common hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, solvents, paint, fertilizers, pesticides, and other similar materials. Any transport of hazardous materials is subject to the federal and State regulations, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Future residences would store and use various chemicals for routine housekeeping and landscaping maintenance. However, none of these chemicals would be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to humans or the environment. Because quantities of hazardous materials used and stored on-site would be minimal, a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials is not anticipated.

According to EnviroStor.dtc.ca.gov there were plans for a proposed middle school in 2014, located approximately 600 feet west of the Project Site. The nearest school is the Barton House Playschool Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 37
located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project Site. As noted above, the Project would construct a 66-unit residential apartment complex that would use various chemicals for routine housekeeping and landscaping maintenance. Through compliance with City, County, State, and federal regulations the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would impact any schools or planned schools. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

The Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites as compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and reported in the EnviroStor database.5 Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

No private airports occur within two miles of the Project Site. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Bernardino International Airport, located approximately three (3) miles north of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact regarding its location within an airport land use plan or creating a significant safety hazard or result in excessive noise to the public or environment. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

The proposed 66-unit residential apartment complex would have access via Barton Road, a 4-lane roadway. The Proposed Project would not alter the existing circulation pattern in the Project area.

Therefore, emergency access and evacuation routes would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

Additionally, the Project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and vertical clearance. Implementation of applicable local regulations during the construction of the Project would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant to an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

According to the General Plan Update EIR Figure 4.7.1, the Project Site is not within a High or Very High Fire Hazard zone, nor does it occur within an Urban Wildland Interface Zone. The Proposed Project is the development of an apartment complex, including landscaping and parking areas and occurs in a developed area. The Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. All new construction shall comply with all applicable building requirements and would be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

The Project would not generate hazardous materials and fire hazard impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable Conditions of Approval:

Public Health and Safety Element Policies: 10.4.2,10.4.2.a-e,10.5.2, 10.5.2.b-e, 10.5.2.g, 10.5.2.i,

10.6.2, 10.6.2.a-e.

Community Design Element Policies: 3.1.9.2.e
5 Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ .

Accessed December 30, 2024.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 38
Public Services and Facilities Element: 8.1.2.e-g
Mitigation:

No Mitigation

WATER RESOURCES
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR, and Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Goodman & Associates. Dated May 25, 2023 (Attachment D).

Impacts to Groundwater Supplies Significant and Unavoidable Impact 4.8.4.1. Implementation of the General Plan would increase the existing demand for water thereby reducing water availability to, or interfering with, existing users of well water.

Groundwater Recharge
Impact 4.8.4.2. Implementation of the General Plan may result in the loss of water recharge areas and hillside watershed resources.

Demand for Water Services
Impact 4.8.4.3: Implementation of the General Plan will increase the demand for water services such that it exceeds the existing and planned facilities.

Impacts to Water Quality
Impact 4.8.4.4: Implementation of the General Plan may, during future construction activities and post-construction uses, violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Water Availability for Fire Flow
Impact 4.8.4.5: The new demand for water may affect the water available for emergency fire flow.

Project Analysis
The Proposed Project would disturb more than 5 acres and therefore would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Land development and building construction activities for the Proposed Project would involve the clearing and grading of the development area, the maintenance/operation of construction equipment, and the handling/storage/disposal of materials that could contribute to pollutant loading in stormwater runoff. In compliance with this permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be required and implemented to control non-point pollution. A SWPPP will require erosion control, sediment control, non‐stormwater and waste and material management best management practices (BMPs). As a result, the BMPs that comply with the SWPPP requirements will reduce potential water quality impacts during construction to a less than significant level.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 39
The City obtains all of its water from groundwater wells in the Bunker Hill Basin, an aquifer underlying the San Bernardino Valley. Groundwater in the region includes native water supplies supplemented by imported water to meet approximately 13% to 16% of the water demand. The City of Loma Linda was a participating agency in the development of the 2015 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan). Resource management activities defined in the Plan, in combination with the integrated goals, objectives, and strategies of the Plan and participating agencies are intended to ensure that the Region's water resources are sustainably managed into the future. The Region’s long-term water demands consider the 15 participating agencies’ General Plan and/or Urban Water Management Plan scenarios to the year 2035, as required by the 2015 IRWM Proposition 84 and 1E Program Guidelines published by the California Department of Water Resources.

As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Bunker Hill Basin is artificially recharged by surface stream diversions made for groundwater replenishment.

Lytle Creek, the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, Devil Creek, Twin Creek, Waterman Creek, and Sand Creek are used for groundwater recharge. Estimated water use for Proposed Project would be approximately 14.317 gallons per minute or 23 acre-feet per year. The City’s General Plan projections have been included in the IRWM Plan; no General Plan Amendment is proposed and therefore, the projected available groundwater supply would be sufficient to meet the long-term water demands of the Proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would not generate water resource impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Public Services and Facilities Element Policies: 8.7.2, 8.7.2.a-d, 8.7.2.f-g.

Land Use Element Policy 2.2.3.1.m.

Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 9.6.2, 9.6.2.a-g.

4.8.4.2A. New development shall incorporate features to facilitate the on-site infiltration of precipitation and/or runoff into groundwater basins. Features such as (but not be limited to) detention basins incorporated into project landscaping; and the installation of porous areas within parking areas. Groundwater recharge features shall be included on development plans and shall be reviewed by the Loma Linda Department of Public Works, Water Division and the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 40

LAND USE
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR
Changes in the Pattern of Land Use
Impact 4.9.4.1. Implementation of the General Plan would change the predominant agricultural land use pattern in the eastern section of the Planning Area thus changing the predominant character of the area.

Affect Existing Development Patterns
Impact 4.9.4.2. Implementation of the General Plan would result in changes to existing land use designations in certain areas which could negatively affect the existing pattern of development as well as the surrounding uses.

Incompatibilities with Airport Land Use
Impact 4.9.4.3. A small portion of the City of Loma Linda is located within the San Bernardino International Airport influence area in the “draft” land use plan.

Proposed land use designations may be incompatible with the “draft” Airport Land Use Commission’s plan for the influence area.

Project Analysis
The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation of R3. The R3 category is intended for multifamily uses consisting of low-rise (one to three story) condominium and apartment style development. The Proposed Project includes four (4) three-story buildings with varying types and sizes of apartment units and related on-site amenities.

The Proposed Project would not divide an established community. The physical division of an established community is typically associated with construction of a linear feature, such as a major highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge, which would impair mobility in an existing community or between a community and an outlying area. The Proposed Project does not include the construction of such linear features. The Proposed Project would comply with the development standards and design guidelines presented within the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan and does not propose construction or operations that are different than those assessed in the General Plan Update EIR.

As the Project Site is not within the San Bernardino International Airport influence area, no impacts to this resource would result.

The Project Site is currently in a developed area of the City and does not contain agricultural land under commercial cultivation. The General Plan designates the Project as R3 and the Proposed Project is a permitted use within this land use designation. The Proposed Project would not involve changes that would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Important to nonagricultural uses. The Project Site is not designated or zoned for agricultural use, used for agriculture, or subject to a Williamson Act contract. No impacts to agricultural resources would result.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 41
The Project Site is not zoned or designated for forest or timberland, nor is it used for forestry operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forestland or result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. No impacts to a forest resource would occur.

The Project would not generate land use impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Conservation and Open Space Policies; 9.5.2, 9.5.2.a, 9.5.2.b.

Land Use Element Policies: 2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.1.a-f, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.1.a-r, 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.1.a-g, 2.2.5.2,

2.2.5.2.a-d, 2.2.5.3, 2.2.5.3.a-c, 2.2.5.4, 2.2.5.4.a-b, 2.2.7.1, 2.2.7.1.a-b, 2.2.7.2, 2.2.7.2.a, 2.2.7.3,

2.2.7.3.a-f, 2.2.8.1, 2.2.8.1.a-h, 2.2.8.2, 2.2.8.2.a-h, 2.2.8.3, 2.2.8.3.a-h, 2.2.8.4, 2.2.8.4.a-p,

2.2.8.5, 2.2.8.5.a-l, 2.2.8.6, 2.2.8.6.a-f, 2.2.8.7, 2.2.8.7.a-h, 2.2.8.8, 2.2.8.8.a-g, 2.2.8.9, 2.2.8.9.a-g,

2.2.8.10., 2.2.8.10.a-f.

Public Health and Safety Element Policies: 10.7.2.1, 10.7.2.a, 10.7.2.b.

Mitigation:

No Mitigation

FLOODING HAZARDS
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR, and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Goodman & Associates, dated May 25, 2023 (Attachment D).

Exposure of Structures to Flood Hazards
Impact 4.10.6.1. Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in exposure of people or structures to the impacts of flooding through the placement of structures in the 100- 500 year floodplain.

Increased Stormwater Runoff
Impact 4.10.6.2. Future development under the proposed General Plan would likely result in a net increase in impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, parking lots, buildings). An increase in impervious surface reduces the amount of rainfall that can infiltrate into the subsurface. Increases in runoff can amplify drainage volumes and velocities causing storm drainage facilities that are at or near capacity to fail during peak events. This excess runoff may result in localized ponding and/or flooding. Therefore, the implementation of development in accordance with the proposed General Plan may result in significant impacts related to existing drainage facilities.

Project Analysis
A Preliminary WQMP (herein WQMP) was prepared for the Project Site by ACAA Limited Partnership by Goodman & Associates (see Attachment D). The WQMP is intended to comply with the Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 42
requirements of the City of Loma Linda and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program. Runoff from the Project Site currently drains to an infiltration basin located within the northwest corner of the site.

Site runoff will be directed to the basin via sheet flow and a minor area drain system. Flows in excess of the water quality design capture volume will be metered out via the existing outlet structure that connects to the existing storm drain associated with the apartment complex to the north. The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control measures listed in the WQMP were prepared in accordance with the RWQCB requirements.

According to the General Plan Update EIR, the Project Site is not located within a 100-year flood plain.

Figure 4.10.1 of the General Plan Update EIR shows that the Project Site is within flood zone A99 the “Interim Zone”, an area still partially subject to flooding. However, improvements to San Timoteo Creek revised the designation from A99 to Zone X as shown in FIRM No. 06071C8712H issued August 28, 2008. As noted on the updated map, Zone X overlays areas determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. Therefore, a less than significant impact to flood hazards is anticipated.

The Project would not generate flooding hazard impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Public Health and Safety Element Policies: 10.2.3, 10.2.3.a-g.

Mitigation:

No Mitigation
NOISE
Summary of Findings from the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR.

Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Impact 4.11.5.1. Noise levels from grading and other construction activities would potentially result in noise levels reaching 91 dBA Lmax at off-site locations 50 feet from the site boundary. This would result in potentially significant noise impacts to off-site sensitive receptors adjacent to the individual construction site.

Long-Term Vehicular Noise Impacts
Impact 4.11.5.2. The implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in potential projectrelated long-term vehicular noise that would affect sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to excessive traffic related noise levels. To ensure that all new noise-sensitive proposals are carefully reviewed with respect to potential noise impacts, the City shall review new development using noise guidelines in combination with the land use compatibility standards.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 43
Long-Term Stationary Noise Impacts
Impact 4.11.5.3. New development associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could expose existing and/or new sensitive uses to stationary noise sources, such as industrial and/or commercial uses.

Long-Term Railroad Noise Impacts
Impact 4.11.5.4. Although the proposed General Plan would not result in potential project-related increases in railroad noise, there could be new proposed sensitive land uses along and adjacent to the railroads that would be affected by high noise levels from railroad operations.

Project Analysis
The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB), which is a logarithmic unit of noise level measurement that relates the energy of a noise source to that of a constant reference level. The human ear, however, is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum.

Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written as dBA. Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dBA Leq, or the equivalent noise level for that period of time. Noise standards for land use compatibility are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn).

CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and by ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. Ldn is a similar 24-hour average measure that weighs only the nighttime hours.

Municipal Code §9.20.070 states that a temporary permit may be granted for building construction that exceeds the maximum noise levels between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, provided that all equipment is properly equipped with standard noise muffling apparatus.

Construction
Onsite Construction Noise
Individual pieces of construction equipment that would most likely be used for construction produce maximum noise levels between 74 dBA and 85 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The construction equipment-reference noise levels presented in Table 12 below are based on measured noise data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). However, equipment used on construction sites typically operate at less than full power. The acoustical usage factor is the percentage of time that each type of construction equipment is anticipated to be in full power operation during a typical construction day. These values are estimates and will vary based on the actual construction process and schedule.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 44
Table 12
Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Maximum Noise Levels at
50 feet, dBA (Lmax)
Acoustical Usage
Factor (%)
Air Compressor 78 40
Cement and mortar mixer 80 50
Concrete mixer truck 79 40
Concrete pump 81 20
Crane 81 16
Dozer 82 40
Drill Rig 84 20
Excavator 81 40
Forklift 75 20
Generator 81 50
Grader 85 40
Dump/Haul truck 76 40
Paver 77 50
Rollers 80 20
Rubber-tire loader 79 40
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 40
Delivery truck 74 40
Water truck 82 10
Welders 74 40
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Construction Noise Handbook, Table 7-3: Example of Possible Construction Equipment Noise Emission Criteria Limits.

As shown in Table 12, the estimated noise exposure levels that could be expected during construction of the Proposed Project could range between 74 dBA and 85 dBA. Construction of the Project would be required to adhere to the requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code, including the use of noise-reduction features on construction equipment (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds).

Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Construction equipment may result in vibration levels that could be considered annoying at nearby sensitive receptors when vibration causing equipment is within 100 feet of that receptor. However, vibration produced by construction activities would be short-term and therefore impacts are considered less than significant.

Operations
The Proposed Project would be conditioned to comply with the City’s Municipal Code for residential noise limits. The maximum allowable noise limit in residential areas is 50 dBA from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM and 55 dBA from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. The Project Site is surrounded by existing sources of noise including roads, a commercial center to the west and residences to the north and east. Therefore, noise generated by the Proposed Project (a 66-unit apartment complex) is not anticipated to be substantial.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 45
The Project would not generate noise impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Noise Element Policies: 7.8.1.1, 7.8.1.1.a-l, 7.8.1.2, 7.8.1.2.a-f.

4.11.5.1A. Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. No construction activities shall be allowed on weekends and holidays until after the buildings are enclosed without prior authorization of the City.

4.11.5.1B. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, to the maximum feasible extent, the City shall ask all project applicants to develop a site-specific noise reduction program, subject to the City’s approval, which includes the following measures:
▪ Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of problems.
▪ An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be posted to respond to and track complaints.
▪ A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed prior to the issuance of a building permit (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.).
▪ Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
▪ Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used, where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. ▪ Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. They shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or insulation barriers, or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

4.11.5.1C. If pile-driving occurs as part of the project, it shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no pile driving permitted between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m. No pile driving shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 46

4.11.5.1D. To further mitigate potential pile-driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction impacts, a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures shall be completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant. This plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation is achieved. These attenuation measures shall include as many of the following control strategies as feasible and shall be implemented prior to any required pile-driving activities:
• Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions;
• Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site; • Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as it is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
• Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
• Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

4.11.5.1E. A process with the following components shall be established for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to pile-driving construction noise:
• A procedure for notifying City staff and Police Department; • A list of telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours); • A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem;
• Designation of a construction complaint manager for the project; and • Notification of neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities.

4.11.5.2A. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and are directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 57 dBA CNEL should be equipped with air conditioning or mechanical ventilation to allow the windows and doors to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, thus reducing noise levels below the level of significance (45 dBA CNEL).

4.11.5.2B. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and are directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 69 dBA CNEL should incorporate mitigation measures such as building façade upgrades.

4.11.5.2C. Outdoor active use areas, such as backyards and school playgrounds, would need to be protected by freestanding sound walls along the property boundaries where exposed to noise levels above 70 dBA.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 47

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR
Population and Housing Projections
Buildout of the City of Loma Linda due to implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. A General Plan is, by definition, growth inducing in that it provides a plan for accommodating future increases in population, housing, and employment. It also provides a plan for ensuring that adequate infrastructure is available to serve that growth. Implementation of the proposed General Plan will not exceed the housing and population projections for the City.

Displacement of Residential Units or Persons
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in the displacement of a substantial number of residential units and persons.

Jobs to Housing Balance
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in employment growth within the City exacerbating the jobs-to-housing balance.

Project Analysis
As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, development under the General Plan would result in additional residential units and employment in the Planning Area. The General Plan Update EIR included a review of up to 600 residential units, resulting in an increase in population of up to approximately 1,650 new residents. The Project Site is currently vacant, and would not displace any existing people or housing. Additionally, the Proposed Project is an allowable use within the land use designation and therefore, was reviewed as part of the General Plan Update EIR.

Population
The most recent growth projections adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) indicate that population growth in Loma Linda will be greater than what occurred in the 1990s (383 persons annually or 2%). SCAG’s population projections indicates City growth by approximately 701 persons annually through 2025. For the year 2000 actual population of 18,582 was 4,393 people below the SCAG projected population of 22,975. The current population according to Loma Linda City’s website is 21,000, nearly half of what was projected by SCAG for 2025 (approximately 40,498).

Full development of the use that would be permitted by the General Plan would increase the City’s resident population and housing stock within the City. With the Proposed Project development of up to a total of 66 dwelling units, the City’s population would increase by approximately 178 residents.

The Proposed Project would account for approximately 0.44 percent of the projected 40,498 population growth based on the 2000-2025 SCAG RTP Growth Forecast. Therefore, the population growth from the Proposed Project would be anticipated for the buildout of the Planning Area. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 48
The Project would not generate population or housing impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Economic Development Element Policy: 4.6.3.k.

Mitigation:

No mitigation is required.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR
Fire Protection
Impact 4.13.1.1 Build out of the City of Loma Linda will result in a substantial increase in population and the development of residential and non-residential structures; thereby, increasing the need for fire emergency services and facilities.

Police Protection
Impact 4.13.2.1 Increases in population and employment resulting from implementation of the General Plan would increase the need for police personnel, facilities, and/or support services.

Public Educational Facilities
Impact 4.13.3.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in the need for additional school facilities.

Library Services
Impact 4.13.4.1. Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased demand for library services and the need for additional library facilities within the City.

Wastewater
Impact 4.13.5.1. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in increased demand for sewer service within the City.

Solid Waste
Impact 4.13.6.1. Implementation of the General Plan would result in increased demand for solid waste services.

Energy Resources
Impact 4.13.7.1. Build out of the City will result in an increase in population, residential and nonresidential structures, potentially increasing the use of and need for electricity and/or natural gas. Due to the growth resulting from implementation of the proposed Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 49
General Plan, this increase would result in impacts on existing electrical or natural gas generation/transmission facilities.

Project Analysis
Fire Protection
Fire protection for the City is provided by the City of Loma Linda, Department of Public Safety, Fire and Rescue Division. The nearest fire station to the Project Site is Station 251, located approximately

1.3 miles west of the Project Site. The increase of population in the project area was anticipated and reviewed in the General Plan Update EIR. Development Impact Fees would also assist with the provision of fire services and would be collected at the time of building permit issuance.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would be expected to receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities.

Police Protection
Police protection for the City is provided by and contracted through the San Bernardino Sheriff Department, located at 655 East Third Street in San Bernardino, at the Sheriff Headquarters, Central Station.

The increase of population in the project area was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the existing zoning for the site (i.e., R3), it is expected to have adequate police protection services and would not result in the need for additional police protection services. Development Impact Fees would also assist with the provision of police services and would be collected at the time of building permit issuance.

Schools
The Project Site is within the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD). The Proposed Project would increase the number of dwelling units in the City and consequently, the number of students.

Government Code 65995 establishes fees to be paid by all development projects that would assist with the funding of new school facilities.

The increase of population in the project area was reviewed in the General Plan Update EIR. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the R3 zone it is anticipated that with collection of development impact fees, adequate school services would be available and impacts to school services would be less than significant.

The Project is consistent with the parameters of the General Plan Update EIR and therefore has been considered in the City’s growth plan and service needs. The Project would not generate public service or utilities impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Public Services and Facilities Element Policies: 8.1.2, 8.1.2.a-g, 8.2.2, 8.2.2.a-h, 8.3.2, 8.3.2.a-h,

8.4.2, 8.4.2.a-c, 8.9.2, 8.9.2.a-e, 8.10.6, 8.10.6.a-f.

Housing Element Policies: 1.3, 1.3.1.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 50
Mitigation:

No Mitigation

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR, and Traffic Impact Analysis by Ganddini Group, Inc. December 16, 2024 (Attachment E).

Increased Traffic Volumes Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 4.14.4.1. Implementation of the proposed General Plan will facilitate the development of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and other types of projects that will result in increased traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes could, in turn, result in congestion along area roadways and the I-10 freeway.

Project Analysis
A Traffic Impact Analysis, dated December 16, 2024, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc. to assess potential transportation impacts resulting from development of the Proposed Project in context of CEQA (see Attachment E). The Project was screened for both level of service (LOS) analysis and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to assess conformance with General Plan and operational standards as well as Measure V.

Since the City of Loma Linda adopted the County TIA Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA, the Project VMT was assessed and documented in accordance with the County Guidelines. The Proposed Project is forecasted to generate a total of 445 daily trips, including 26 trips during the AM peak hour and 34 trips during the PM peak hour.

Based on the preliminary review, the Proposed Project satisfies the screening criteria for projects within a low VMT area; with a VMT per resident, which is less than County-wide threshold VMT per resident. Therefore, the Proposed Project may be presumed to result in a less than significant impact to VMT and additional modeling is not required.

The LOS analysis was performed in accordance with parameters specified in the County TIA Guidelines. The trip generation satisfies the City-established LOS screening criteria for projects generating fewer than 100 peak hour trips.

The studied intersections including California Street at Orange Avenue, California Street at Barton Road, New Jersey Street at Barton Road, and Project Driveway at Barton Road, are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service (C or better) during the peak hours for Existing Plus Project conditions.

The proposed 66-unit residential apartment complex would provide access via Barton Road. The Proposed Project would not alter the existing circulation pattern in the Project area. Therefore, emergency access and evacuation routes would not be impacted. Additionally, the Project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and vertical clearance.

Implementation of federal, State, and local regulations during the construction of the Project would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant to an adopted emergency response or Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 51
evacuation plan. In addition, the Project Site would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Proposed Project would not generate transportation or circulation impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Traffic and Circulation Policies: 6.10.1.a-r.

Mitigation:

None required.

PARKS AND RECREATION
Summary of Findings from the General Plan Update EIR
Availability of Adequate Park/Recreational Facilities
Impact 4.15.4.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in significant impacts to the availability adequate parkland and/or recreational facilities within the City.

Increased Maintenance of Park/Recreational Facilities
Impact 4.15.4.2 Implementation of the General Plan may result in the need for increased park maintenance and recreational programs and services.

Project Analysis
Increased demands for parks and other recreation services primarily result from increases in the permanent population. Based on SCAG’s 2025 projection population of 40,498 there will be an average household size of 2.75 persons per household. Based on the estimated population generation for the Proposed Project (182 people), approximately 0.9 acres of parkland would be needed to meet the City’s established standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay development impact fees, which are collected to fund the expansion of park and recreation assets in the City.

The Project includes the addition of outdoor amenities (i.e., picnic tables, shaded areas, workout stations and pathways). The Project is consistent with the parameters of the R3 land use designation and therefore was considered in the City’s growth plan and service needs.

The Project would not generate park or recreation impacts that are unique to the Project or Project Site, no direct or cumulatively considerable impacts or any new or more significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR would result.

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Public Services and Facilities Element Policies: 8.3.2.c, 8.6.5, 8.6.5.a-h, 8.6., 8.6.a-f, 8.6.7, 8.6.7a-g,

8.6.8, 8.6.8.a-b.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 52
Mitigation:

No mitigation required.

CONCLUSION
The Project was analyzed using parameters listed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

According to these parameters, a project would require subsequent environmental analysis if the Project impacts:
⚫ Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; ⚫ Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, General Plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;
⚫ Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the General Plan, community plan or zoning action; or
⚫ Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

As demonstrated in this Compliance Memorandum, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the development pattern and land use anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the standards presented in the City’s uniformly applied development policies. Subsequently, impacts associated with the Project’s implementation would not be peculiar to the Project in a manner not accounted for in the General Plan Update EIR. Finally, the Project would not generate impacts at a greater degree than those assumed in the General Plan Update EIR and would not exasperate any significant and unavoidable impacts noted within the General Plan Update EIR.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 53
Attachments to the Barton Road Apartments Project
CEQA Compliance Memorandum
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 54
Attachment A
CalEEMod Outputs
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
1 / 43
Barton Road Apartments 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
2 / 43

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
3 / 43

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

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

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
4 / 43

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

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
5 / 43

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

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
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
6 / 43

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

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
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
7 / 43

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Barton Road Apartments
Construction Start Date 6/24/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency Loma Linda
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 24.0
Location 34.049006, -117.22439
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Loma Linda
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5395
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

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
Apartments Low
Rise

66.0 Dwelling Unit 2.80 69,960 99,232 0.00 218 —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
8 / 43
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
102 1000sqft 2.34 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 23.5 31.7 31.5 0.05 9.26 5.25 5,542 0.23 0.08 3.10 5,564 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.34 10.9 16.0 0.02 1.12 0.56 3,229 0.14 0.08 0.08 3,256 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.86 5.51 7.03 0.01 0.77 0.43 1,400 0.05 0.03 0.51 1,411 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.34 1.01 1.28 < 0.005 0.14 0.08 232 0.01 0.01 0.09 234

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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.39 31.7 31.5 0.05 9.26 5.25 5,542 0.23 0.08 3.10 5,564 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
9 / 43
2026 23.5 10.3 16.5 0.02 1.06 0.51 3,267 0.14 0.07 2.81 3,296 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.34 10.9 16.0 0.02 1.12 0.56 3,229 0.14 0.08 0.08 3,256 2026 1.27 10.3 15.7 0.02 1.06 0.51 3,213 0.12 0.08 0.07 3,239 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.63 5.51 6.75 0.01 0.77 0.43 1,270 0.05 0.02 0.36 1,279 2026 1.86 4.59 7.03 0.01 0.46 0.23 1,400 0.05 0.03 0.51 1,411 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.12 1.01 1.23 < 0.005 0.14 0.08 210 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 212 2026 0.34 0.84 1.28 < 0.005 0.08 0.04 232 0.01 0.01 0.09 234

2.4. Operations 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.60 1.57 15.5 0.03 2.41 0.64 3,525 3.37 0.15 10.0 3,664 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.15 1.62 10.1 0.03 2.41 0.64 3,341 3.38 0.16 0.75 3,473 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.37 1.67 13.0 0.03 2.37 0.63 3,375 3.38 0.16 4.61 3,511 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.61 0.30 2.37 0.01 0.43 0.12 559 0.56 0.03 0.76 581

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
10 / 43
Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.62 1.25 11.7 0.03 2.38 0.62 2,810 0.14 0.13 9.50 2,863 Area 1.96 0.04 3.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.0 Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 646 0.06 < 0.005 — 648 Water — — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Waste — — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Total 3.60 1.57 15.5 0.03 2.41 0.64 3,525 3.37 0.15 10.0 3,664 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.50 1.34 9.99 0.03 2.38 0.62 2,636 0.15 0.14 0.25 2,682 Area 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 646 0.06 < 0.005 — 648 Water — — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Waste — — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Total 3.15 1.62 10.1 0.03 2.41 0.64 3,341 3.38 0.16 0.75 3,473 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.49 1.36 10.3 0.03 2.35 0.61 2,663 0.15 0.14 4.10 2,713 Area 1.86 0.02 2.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.88 Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 646 0.06 < 0.005 — 648 Water — — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Waste — — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Total 3.37 1.67 13.0 0.03 2.37 0.63 3,375 3.38 0.16 4.61 3,511 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.27 0.25 1.88 < 0.005 0.43 0.11 441 0.03 0.02 0.68 449 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
11 / 43
Area 0.34 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 Energy < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 107 0.01 < 0.005 — 107 Water — — — — — — 5.44 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.33
Waste — — — — — — 4.35 0.43 0.00 — 15.2
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Total 0.61 0.30 2.37 0.01 0.43 0.12 559 0.56 0.03 0.76 581

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 0.84 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437
Demolition — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — — —
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

0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demolition — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — — —
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 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demolition — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
12 / 43
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 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.20 0.05 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215 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 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 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

3.3. Site Preparation (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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 1.26 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 7.67 3.94 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
13 / 43
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.21 0.11 — — — — —
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 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.04 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 — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.36 0.00 0.23 0.05 247 0.01 0.01 0.91 250 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 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 6.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.37 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.05 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 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
14 / 43

3.5. Grading (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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 0.66 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 2.76 1.34 — — — — —
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

0.10 0.89 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.15 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 0.16 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.03 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)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.20 0.05 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
15 / 43
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 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 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

3.7. Building 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
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

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 0.40 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406
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

0.26 2.41 3.01 0.01 0.10 0.09 554 0.02 < 0.005 — 556
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
16 / 43
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 0.44 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 91.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 92.0 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 0.22 0.21 3.70 0.00 0.62 0.15 670 0.03 0.02 2.48 680 Vendor 0.01 0.24 0.13 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 218 0.02 0.03 0.61 229 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)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.23 2.79 0.00 0.62 0.15 614 0.03 0.02 0.06 622 Vendor 0.01 0.25 0.13 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 218 0.02 0.03 0.02 228 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.14 0.03 144 0.01 0.01 0.25 146 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 52.7 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 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.01 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.73 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
17 / 43
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405
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

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405
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

0.43 3.95 5.20 0.01 0.15 0.14 962 0.04 0.01— 965
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

0.08 0.72 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 159 0.01 < 0.005— 160
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 0.21 0.19 3.42 0.00 0.62 0.15 656 0.03 0.02 2.24 666 Vendor < 0.005 0.23 0.13 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 214 0.02 0.03 0.56 225 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)
———————————
Worker 0.19 0.21 2.58 0.00 0.62 0.15 602 0.01 0.02 0.06 609 Vendor < 0.005 0.24 0.13 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 214 0.02 0.03 0.01 224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily———————————
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.09 0.00 0.25 0.06 245 < 0.005 0.01 0.39 248 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
18 / 43
Vendor < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.10 90.1 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 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.01 40.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 0.29 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516
Paving 0.31 — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
19 / 43
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.08 0.00 0.20 0.05 207 0.01 0.01 0.71 210 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 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.77 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

3.13. Architectural Coating (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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectural
Coatings

23.3 — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
20 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architectural
Coatings

1.28 — — — — — — — — — —
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
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architectural
Coatings

0.23 — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.68 0.00 0.12 0.03 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.45 133 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 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.77 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12 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
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
21 / 43

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise

1.62 1.25 11.7 0.03 2.38 0.62 2,810 0.14 0.13 9.50 2,863 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.62 1.25 11.7 0.03 2.38 0.62 2,810 0.14 0.13 9.50 2,863 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise

1.50 1.34 9.99 0.03 2.38 0.62 2,636 0.15 0.14 0.25 2,682 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.50 1.34 9.99 0.03 2.38 0.62 2,636 0.15 0.14 0.25 2,682 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise

0.27 0.25 1.88 < 0.005 0.43 0.11 441 0.03 0.02 0.68 449 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.27 0.25 1.88 < 0.005 0.43 0.11 441 0.03 0.02 0.68 449

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
22 / 43
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 293 0.03 < 0.005 — 295
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 293 0.03 < 0.005 — 295
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 293 0.03 < 0.005 — 295
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 293 0.03 < 0.005 — 295
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 48.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.8
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 48.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.8

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise

0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 352 0.03 < 0.005 — 353 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 352 0.03 < 0.005 — 353 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
23 / 43
Apartments
Low Rise

0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 352 0.03 < 0.005 — 353 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 352 0.03 < 0.005 — 353 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
< 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 58.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 58.5 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 58.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 58.5

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consumer
Products

1.51 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.33 0.04 3.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.0 Total 1.96 0.04 3.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.0 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consumer
Products

1.51 — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
24 / 43
Architectural
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consumer
Products

0.27 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.04 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 Total 0.34 < 0.005 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 32.8 0.54 0.01 — 50.3
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
25 / 43
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 5.44 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.33
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 5.44 0.09 < 0.005 — 8.33

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.8
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — 4.35 0.43 0.00 — 15.2
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 4.35 0.43 0.00 — 15.2
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
26 / 43

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. 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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Total — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Total — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Total — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
27 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
28 / 43
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
29 / 43

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 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
30 / 43

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/24/2025 7/22/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/23/2025 8/6/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 8/7/2025 9/4/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/5/2025 7/24/2026 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 7/25/2026 8/22/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/23/2026 9/20/2026 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 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
31 / 43
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
32 / 43
Building Construction Worker 47.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 7.06 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 9.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

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)
Architectural Coating 141,669 47,223 0.00 0.00 6,114

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
33 / 43
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.34 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Low
Rise
445 445 445 162,367 3,333 3,333 3,333 1,216,397
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
34 / 43
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
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)
141669 47,223 0.00 0.00 6,114

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
35 / 43

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Low Rise 309,259 346 0.0330 0.0040 1,099,333 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 2,750,958 1,947,708
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 48.7 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
36 / 43
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
37 / 43

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 26.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.80 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.8 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.

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.

Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
38 / 43

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 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 0 0 0 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 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
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 1 1 1 2
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.

Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
39 / 43
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 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 100
AQ-PM 57.4
AQ-DPM 82.8
Drinking Water 96.3
Lead Risk Housing 29.2
Pesticides 74.7
Toxic Releases 44.2
Traffic 81.0
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 81.9
Groundwater 47.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.8
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 34.7
Cardio-vascular 45.1
Low Birth Weights 75.6
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
40 / 43
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 39.2
Housing 89.1
Linguistic 17.3
Poverty 55.9
Unemployment 14.4

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 37.76466059
Employed 27.51186963
Median HI 26.53663544
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 60.5800077
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 11.52316181
Transportation —
Auto Access 62.47914795
Active commuting 28.56409598
Social —
2-parent households 37.02040293
Voting 39.83061722
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 30.07827538
Park access 50.53252919
Retail density 65.94379571
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
41 / 43
Supermarket access 72.28281791
Tree canopy 43.62889773
Housing —
Homeownership 9.303220839
Housing habitability 37.12305916
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.38637239 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 66.31592455
Uncrowded housing 31.19466188
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 48.58206082
Arthritis 92.2
Asthma ER Admissions 65.8
High Blood Pressure 95.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 94.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 71.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 92.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 79.7
Cognitively Disabled 52.2
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 32.7
Mental Health Not Good 41.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 95.6
Obesity 56.2
Pedestrian Injuries 53.3
Physical Health Not Good 67.2
Stroke 91.3
Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
42 / 43
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 13.6
Current Smoker 36.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 67.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 7.3
Elderly 81.9
English Speaking 84.0
Foreign-born 37.0
Outdoor Workers 85.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 69.4
Traffic Density 74.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 54.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 58.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 72.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 32.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Barton Road Apartments Detailed Report, 1/3/2025
43 / 43
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
Characteristics: Project Details Not in a rural area.

Land Use Per Site Plan...5.15 acres
Operations: Vehicle Data Per TIA
Operations: Hearths No Hearths
Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 55
Attachment B
Biological Resources Assessment

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION

FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF LOMA

LINDA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:

Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909-890-1818
Prepared by:

Jennings Environmental, LLC
35414 Acacia Ave.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
909-534-4547
February 2025

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 2
Contents
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................3

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................................3

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................3 SECTION 2.0 – METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................3

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................................3

2.2 SOILS....................................................................................................................................................4

2.3 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY..................................................................................4

2.4 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES ................................................................................................................4

2.5 VEGETATION .......................................................................................................................................5

2.6 WILDLIFE .............................................................................................................................................5

2.7 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN..............................................................5 SECTION 3.0 – RESULTS.................................................................................................................................5

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS ............................................................................................................5

3.1.1 SOILS.............................................................................................................................................6

3.1.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BACKGROUND.....................................................................................6

3.1.3 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ............................................................................................................7

3.1.4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIVITY .........................................................................7

3.1.5 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ..................................................................................................7

3.2 FIELD STUDY RESULTS .........................................................................................................................7

3.2.1 VEGETATION ................................................................................................................................7

3.2.2 WILDLIFE ......................................................................................................................................8

3.2.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES..............................................................................................................8

3.2.4 NESTING BIRDS.............................................................................................................................8

3.2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ............................................................................................................9 Section 4.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................9 Section 5 – REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................12 Appendix A – Figures ..................................................................................................................................13 Appendix B – Photos...................................................................................................................................20 Appendix C – Regulatory Framework .........................................................................................................23 Appendix D – Tables....................................................................................................................................30

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 3
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Jennings Environmental, LLC (Jennings) was retained by Lilburn Corporation (Lilburn) to conduct a literature review and reconnaissance-level survey for the proposed Loma Linda Apartments Project (Project), within the City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. The survey identified vegetation communities, the potential for the occurrence of special status species, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species, and recorded all plants and animals observed or detected within the Project boundary. This biological resources assessment is designed to address the potential effects of the proposed project on designated critical habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Information contained in this document is in accordance with accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and (CDFW). Additionally, the site was surveyed for any drainage features that would meet the definition of the Waters of the US (WOUS), Waters of the State (WOS), or CDFW jurisdiction.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is generally located in Sections 29 and 32, Township 1 South, Range 3 West, and is depicted on the Redlands U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map. More specifically the project is located within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0292-162-21 and -22, within the City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. The project site is located approximately 355 feet east of the intersection of California Street and Barton Road. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and east, vacant land to the south, and commercial development to the west. (Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is to develop the site with 4 apartment buildings. Additional improvements include a gym, clubhouse, parking, and basin reconstruction to include an activity area.

SECTION 2.0 – METHODOLOGY

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to performing the field survey, existing documentation relevant to the Project site was reviewed.

The most recent records were reviewed for the following quadrangle containing and surrounding the Project site: Redlands, San Bernardino South, Riverside East, and Sunnymead, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. The San Bernardino South, Riverside East, and Sunnymead quads were included in this search due to the site’s proximity to their borders. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federal- or state-listed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These sources include:

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 4
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (CDFW 2025) • USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2025)
• California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025), issuer of the California Rare Plant Rank. • USFWS threatened and endangered species occurrence GIS overlay; • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey; • USGS National Map;
• Calwater Watershed Maps
• Environmental Protection Agency My Waters Maps
• USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Maps
• San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Map

2.2 SOILS
Before conducting the surveys, soil maps for San Bernardino County were referenced online to determine the types of soil found within the Project site. Soils were determined in accordance with categories set forth by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2024).

2.3 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY
Jennings’ biologist, Gene Jennings, conducted the general reconnaissance survey within the Project site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special-status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special-status wildlife species. The surveys were conducted on foot, throughout the Project site between 1000 and 1100 hours on February 19, 2025. Weather conditions during the survey included temperatures ranging from 62 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit, with clear skies, no precipitation, and

0.00 to 2.0 mile-per-hour winds. Photographs of the Project site were taken to document existing conditions (Appendix B).

2.4 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
A general assessment of jurisdictional waters regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW was conducted for the proposed Project area. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The State of California (State) regulates the discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. The assessment was conducted by a desktop survey through the USGS National Hydrography Dataset for hydrological connectivity. An additional discussion of the regulatory framework is provided in Appendix C.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 5

2.5 VEGETATION
All plant species observed within the Project site were recorded. Vegetation communities within the Project site were identified and qualitatively described. Plant communities were determined in accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). A comprehensive list of the plant species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix D.

2.6 WILDLIFE
All wildlife and wildlife signs observed and detected, including tracks, scat, carcasses, burrows, excavations, and vocalizations, were recorded. Additional survey time was allotted to insure the presence/absence of state- and/or federally listed or otherwise special-status species. Notes were made on the general habitat types, species observed, and the conditions of the Project site. A comprehensive list of the wildlife species observed during the survey is provided in (Appendix D, Table 1).

2.7 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
According to the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, the Project Site is not mapped within an area for wildlife movement. Additionally, the Project site is not within or adjacent to a habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed Project will not have an impact on any current wildlife corridors or habitat conservation plans.

SECTION 3.0 – RESULTS

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
According to the CNDDB, CNPSEI, and other relevant literature and databases, 94 sensitive species, 26 of which are listed as threatened or endangered, and 5 sensitive habitats, have been documented in the San Bernardino South, Riverside East, and Sunnymead quads. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any state and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, CDFW-designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.

An analysis of the likelihood for the occurrence of all CNDDB-sensitive species documented in the San Bernardino South, Riverside East, and Sunnymead quadsis provided in Table 2, in Appendix D. This analysis takes into account species range as well as documentation within the vicinity of the project area and includes the habitat requirements for each species and the potential for their occurrence on the site, based on required habitat elements and range relative to the current site conditions. According to the databases, no sensitive habitat, including USFWS-designated critical habitat, occurs within or adjacent to the project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 6

3.1.1 SOILS
After a review of the USDA Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025), it was determined that the Project site is located within the San Bernardino County Southwestern Part Area, California area CA677. Based on the results of the database search, two (2) soil type are documented in the area (Figure 3 in Appendix A:

Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (HaC). This soil is well drained with a high capacity to transmit water. This soil consists of alluvium derived from granite, typically ranges in elevation from 890 to 2,860 feet above mean sea level (amsl), and is considered prime farmland if irrigated.

Metz coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MgC). This soil is somewhat excessively drained with a high capacity to transmit water. This soil consists of alluvium, typically ranges in elevation from 30 to 1,200 feet amsl, and is considered prime farmland if irrigated.

3.1.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BACKGROUND
Of the 94 species found within the Redlands, San Bernardino South, Riverside East, and Sunnymead quads, 26 have a special designation of either: federally listed, state listed, or a species of special concern (SSC) under California Fish and Game Code. The discussion below provides the background information on those species that have the potential to occur within the Project site or vicinity.

Burrowing Owl – Candidate Endangered (State) and CDFW-SSC The burrowing owl (BUOW) is a state and federal Species of Special Concern (SSC). Additionally, CDFW is currently reviewing this species for inclusion in the California Endangered Species Act. This owl is a mottled, brownish, and sand-colored, dove-sized raptor, with large, yellow eyes, a rounded head lacking ear tufts, white eyebrows, and long legs compared to other owl species. It is a ground-dwelling owl typically found in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground.

The BUOW is heavily dependent upon the presence of mammal burrows, with ground squirrel burrows being a common choice, in its habitat to provide shelter from predators, and inclement weather, and to provide a nesting place (Coulombe 1971). They are also known to make use of human-created structures, such as cement culverts and pipes, for burrows.

BUOW spends a great deal of time standing on dirt mounds at the entrance to a burrow or perched on a fence post or other low to the ground perch from which they hunt for prey. BUOW frequently hunt by hovering in place above the ground and dropping on their prey from above. They feed primarily on insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles, and moths, but will also take small rodents, birds, and reptiles. They are active during the day and night but are considered a crepuscular owl; generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight. The breeding season for BUOW is February 1 through August 31. Up to 11, but typically 7 to 9, eggs are laid in a burrow, abandoned pipe, or other subterranean hollows where incubation is complete in 28-30 days. Young BUOW fledges in 44 days. The BUOW is considered a migratory species in portions of its range, which includes western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas and Louisiana. BUOW populations in California are considered to be sedentary or locally migratory.

Throughout its range, the BUOW is vulnerable to habitat loss, predation, vehicular collisions, and destruction of burrow sites and the poisoning of ground squirrels (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Zarn 1974,

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 7
Remsen 1978). BUOW has disappeared from significant portions of their range in the last 15 years and, overall, nearly 60% of the breeding groups of owls known to have existed in California during the 1980s had disappeared by the early 1990s (Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). The BUOW is not listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Act but is considered both a federal and state Species of Special Concern. The BUOW is a migratory bird protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code #3513 & #3503.5).

3.1.3 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Aerial imagery of the site was examined and compared with the surrounding USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps to identify drainage features within the survey area as indicated from topographic changes, blue-line features, or visible drainage patterns. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory and EPA Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas had been documented within the vicinity of the site. Similarly, the Soil maps from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023) were reviewed to identify the soil series on-site and to check if they have been identified regionally as hydric soils. Upstream and downstream connectivity of waterways (if present) was reviewed in the field, on aerial imagery, and topographic maps to determine jurisdictional status. After a review of the aerials, it appeared that there was a jurisdictional feature on-site.

3.1.4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIVITY
Hydrologically, the project site is located within the Bunker Hill Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA 801.52), as identified on the Calwater Watershed maps. This undefined area comprises a 124,791-acre drainage area within the larger Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Area (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC10] 1807020305, US Watershed Maps) (CalTrans, 2025). The Upper Santa Ana River watershed in Loma Linda is bordered to the north by the Lytle Creek, West Fork Mojave River, Deep Creek, and Bear Creek watersheds, to the east by the Headwaters Santa Ana River and Headwaters Whitewater River watersheds, to the south by the San Timoteo Wash watershed, and to the west by Middle Santa Ana River watershed (Figure 4 in Appendix A).

3.1.5 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The site is not located within any USFWS-designated Critical Habitat. Therefore, no further surveys are warranted or recommended.

3.2 FIELD STUDY RESULTS

3.2.1 VEGETATION
The vegetation on-site consists of ruderal vegetation with patchy bare ground. The site showed signs of routine maintenance in the form of mowing and discing. The minimal vegetation in the basin and the site was extremely patchy and did not offer any habitat for any sensitive species. The neighboring parcels (north, east, and west) are all developed and the parcel to south is routinely mowed or disced.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 8

3.2.2 WILDLIFE
Several birds were seen or heard during the survey. Species observed or otherwise detected on or in the vicinity of the project site during the surveys included; house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). A full list of all species observed is provided in Table 1 in Appendix D.

3.2.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Burrowing Owl – Candidate Endangered (State) and CDFW-SSC The site is highly disturbed with compacted soils. The conditions present onsite are not suitable for BUOW.

The assessment survey was structured, in part, to detect BUOW, which has been observed in the near vicinity of the Project site (within 5 miles). The survey consisted of walking transects spaced to provide 100% visual coverage of the Project site. The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area. No BUOW pellets, feathers, whitewash or suitable burrows were found. No burrowing owl individuals were observed.

Findings: This species is considered absent from the Project site and the site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, no further surveys are recommended or warranted.

3.2.4 NESTING BIRDS
The immediate surrounding area does contain habitat suitable for nesting birds (developed shrubs and tall trees). As such the Project is subject to the following nesting bird regulations. Recommendations for avoidance and minimization are in section 4.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This Act implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The Act has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The Act prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

California Fish and Game Code
The Project site is also subject to Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 3503 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto”. And Section 3503.5 states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-ofprey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto”.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 9

3.2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Waters of the United States
The USACE has the authority to permit the discharge of dredged or fill material in Waters of the United States (WoUS) under Section 404 CWA. None of the drainage features meet the definition for WOUS as defined in the CWA. The onsite ephemeral drainage features are not relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water and, therefore, will not qualify as waters of the United States under the regulatory authority of the Corps (Sackett v. EPA (2022) 143 S. Ct. 1322, 1336). However, the onsite drainage features will qualify as waters of the State and fall under the regulatory authority of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Waters of the State
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Beneficial uses of the on-site basin include municipal and domestic supply, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. All are considered intermittent beneficial uses (RWQCB, 1994). None of the waters within the project area are listed as impaired by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, 2025).

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board has authority over the discharge of dredged or fill material in Waters of the State (WOS) under Section 401 CWA as well as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The basin meets the definition of WOS under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. Table 1 below details the jurisdictional extent of the WOS on-site (Figure 5 in Appendix A).

Fish and Game Code Section 1602 - State Lake and/or Streambed The CDFW asserts jurisdiction over any drainage feature that contains a definable bed and bank or associated riparian vegetation. The Project area was surveyed with 100 percent visual coverage and the drainage channel on-site is considered jurisdictional under CDFW. Table 1 below details the extent of CDFW jurisdiction within the channel (Figure 6 in Appendix A).

Table 1 – Jurisdiction Areas for the On-Site Basin
Feature Bank-Full
width (feet)
Length
(feet)
Max Channel
Depth (feet)
Regional Board
jurisdiction
{WOS} (acres)
CDFW jurisdiction
(acres)
On-Site Basin 394 N/A 5 1.58 1.99
Total 1.58 1.99
Section 4.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the literature review and personal observations made on-site and in the immediate vicinity, no state and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur within the Project site. Additionally, no plant species with the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site. No other sensitive species were observed within the Project area or buffer area.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 10
Jurisdictional Features
The basin on-site does meet the definitions of Section 1600 of the State of California Fish and Game Code (FGC) under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, and “Waters of the State” as described in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, permits from each regulatory agency will be required.

Nesting Birds
Since there is some habitat within the immediate surrounding area that is suitable for nesting birds in general, the following mitigation measure should be implemented if any future construction is proposed:

Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project‐related disturbance. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance.

Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished herein, and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this analysis to the best of my ability, and the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and standards. Fieldwork conducted for this assessment was performed by me. I certify that I have not signed a non-disclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the project proponent and that I have no financial interest in the project.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 909-534-4547 should you have any questions or require further information.

Sincerely,
Gene Jennings
Principal/Regulatory Specialist
Appendices:

Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Site Photos

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 11
Appendix C – Regulatory Framework
Appendix D – Tables

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 12
Section 5 – REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz. 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park,CA.

Bolster, B.C., editor. 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. Draft Final Report prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Collins, E.D. Pierson, W.E. Rainey and T.E. Kucera. Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program for Contract No. FG3146WM.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
A. 2025 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 3.1.0. Database Query. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. [Accessed February 2025] B. California Wildlife Habitats Relationships Life History Accounts and Range Maps. (Accessed online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range). Accessed February 2025.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Memo from C.F. Raysbrook, Interim Director to Biologist, Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012
California Department of Transportation. Water Quality Planning Tool. http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx (Accessed February 2025) California Native Plant Society (CNPS)2021 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 03 0.39). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; [Accessed February 2025].

Sawyer, J.O., Jr., T. Keeler-Wolf, J. Evens2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Map.
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/lus/Planning/ZoningOverlayMaps.aspx (Accessed February 2025) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)2020 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online Edition]. Website https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [Accessed February 2025].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website: http://wetlands.fws.gov. (Accessed: February 2025).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 13
Appendix A – Figures

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 14

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 15

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 16

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 17

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 18

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 19

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 20
Appendix B – Photos

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 21
Photo 1 –
Southeast
corner,
facing
northwest.

Photo 2 –
Southeast
corner,
facing west.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 22
Photo 3 –
Western
edge, facing
southeast.

Photo 4 –
Western
edge, facing
east.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 23
Appendix C – Regulatory Framework

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 24

1.1 FEDERAL JURISDICTION

1.1.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers
Activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California are regulated by agencies at the federal, state, and regional levels. At the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Program regulates activities within wetlands and waters of the US pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).

At the state level, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities within the bed, bank, and associated habitat of a stream under the Fish and Game Code §§ 1600– 1616. The California State Water Resources Board (SWRB) delegates authority at the regional level to Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that are responsible for regulating discharge into waters of the US under Section 401 of the federal CWA and waters of the State under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act.

The CWA was implemented to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Waters of the United States (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 328 Section 328.3). “Waters of the US” are defined as follows:
§ 328.3 Definitions.

For the purpose of this regulation these terms are defined as follows:
(a) Waters of the United States means:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
(i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; or
(ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)(i) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; or (iii) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 25
waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or (ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) The following are not ‘‘waters of the United States’’ even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities.

Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA;
(3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased;
(5) 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; (6) 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;
(7) 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 waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
(c) In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 26
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(2) Adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are ‘‘adjacent wetlands.’’
(3) High tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such at those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
(4) Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
(5) Tidal waters means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects.
(6) Significantly affect means a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. To determine whether waters, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, have a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
functions identified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section will be assessed and the factors identified in paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section will be considered:
(i) Functions to be assessed:
(A) Contribution of flow;
(B) Trapping, transformation, filtering, and transport of materials (including nutrients, sediment, and other

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 27
pollutants);
(C) Retention and attenuation of floodwaters and runoff; (D) Modulation of temperature in waters identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
(E) Provision of habitat and food resources for aquatic species located in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(ii) Factors to be considered:
(A) The distance from a water identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(B) Hydrologic factors, such as the frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, and rate of hydrologic connections,
including shallow subsurface flow;
(C) The size, density, or number of waters that have been determined to be similarly situated;
(D) Landscape position and geomorphology; an
(E) Climatological variables such as temperature, rainfall, and snowpack.

1.2 STATE JURISDICTION
The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA as well as the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne; California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Waters of the State are defined by Porter-Cologne as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code Section 13050(e)). Waters of the State broadly includes all waters within the State’s boundaries (public or private), including waters in both natural and artificial channels.

1.2.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Under Porter-Cologne, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) regulate the discharge of waste into waters of the State.

Discharges of waste include “fill, any material resulting from human activity, or any other ‘discharge’ that may directly or indirectly impact ‘waters of the state.’” Porter-Cologne reserves the right for the State to regulate activities that could affect the quantity and/or quality of surface and/or groundwaters, including isolated wetlands, within the State. Wetlands were defined as waters of the State if they demonstrated both wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Waters of the State determined to be jurisdictional for these purposes require, if impacted, waste discharge requirements (WDRs).

When an activity results in fill or discharge directly below the OHWM of jurisdictional waters of the United States (federal jurisdiction), including wetlands, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required. If a proposed project is not subject to CWA Section 401 certification but

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 28
involves activities that may result in a discharge to waters of the State, the project may still be regulated under Porter-Cologne and may be subject to waste discharge requirements. In cases where waters apply to both CWA and Porter-Cologne, RWQCB may consolidate permitting requirements to one permit.

1.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.

CDFW defines a “stream” (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1.72). The jurisdiction of CDFW may include areas in or near intermittent streams, ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams that are indicated on USGS maps, watercourses that may contain subsurface flows, or within the flood plain of a water body.

CDFW’s definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs.” CDFW limits of jurisdiction typically include the maximum extents of the uppermost bank-to-bank distance and/or the outermost extent of riparian vegetation dripline, whichever measurement is greater.

In a CDFW guidance of stream processes and forms in dryland watersheds (Vyverberg 2010), streams are identified as having one or more channels that may all be active or receive water only during some high flow event. Subordinate features, such as low flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, and stream-associated vegetation, may occur within the bounds of a single, larger channel. The water course is defined by the topography or elevations of land that confine a stream to a definite course when its waters rise to their highest level. A watercourse is defined as a stream with boundaries defined by the maximal extent or expression on the landscape even though flow may otherwise be intermittent or ephemeral.

Artificial waterways such as ditches (including roadside ditches), canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other artificially created water conveyance systems also may be under the jurisdiction of CDFW. CDFW may claim jurisdiction over these features based on the presence of habitat characteristics suitable to support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, and/or streamdependent terrestrial wildlife. As with natural waterways, the limit of CDFW jurisdiction of artificial waterways includes the uppermost bank-to-bank distance and/or the outermost extent of riparian vegetation dripline, whichever measurement is greater.

CDFW does not have jurisdiction over wetlands but has jurisdiction to protect against a net loss of wetlands. CDFW supports the wetland criteria recognized by USFWS; one or more indicators

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 29
of wetland conditions must exist for wetlands conditions to be considered present. The following is the USFWS accepted definition of a wetland:

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:
(1) at least periodically, the lands supports hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated withwater or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et al. 1979).

In A Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetland Definition (Tiner 1989), the USFWS definition was further clarified “that in order for any area to be classified as wetland by the Service, the area must be periodically saturated or covered by shallow water, whether wetland vegetation and/or hydric soils are present or not; this hydrologic requirement is addressed in the first sentence of the definition.” When considering whether an action would result in a net loss of wetlands, CDFW will extend jurisdiction to USFWS-defined wetland conditions where such conditions exist within the riparian vegetation that is associated with a stream or lake and does not depend on whether those features meet the three-parameter USACE methodology of wetland determination. If impacts to wetlands under the jurisdiction of CDFW are unavoidable, a mitigation plan will be implemented in coordination with CDFW to support the CDFW policy of “no net loss” of wetland habitat.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 30
Appendix D – Tables

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA

LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT
Jennings Environmental Page | 31
Table 1. Species Observed On-Site
Common Name Scientific Name
Plants
Jimsonweed Datura stramonium
Asian mustard Brassica tournefortii
Tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca
Shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana
Wall barley Hordeum murinum
Foxtail brome Bromus madritensis
Telegraphweed Heterotheca grandiflora
Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris
Common stork’s bill Erodium cicutarium
Castor bean Ricinus communis
Birds
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
California towhee Melozone crissalis
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
House sparrow Passer domesticus
Common raven Corvus corax

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 32
Table 2 – CNDDB Potential to Occur for the Redlands, San Bernardino South, Riverside East, and Sunnymead USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangles Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Accipiter
cooperii Cooper's hawk None, None G5, S4, CDFW-WL
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted
or marginal type., Nest sites mainly in
riparian growths of deciduous trees, as
in canyon bottoms on river floodplains; also, live oaks.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Actinemys
pallida
southwestern
pond turtle
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G2G3, SNR,

CDFW-SSC
Aquatic habitats, including ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches, with abundant
vegetation, and need suitable upland
habitat for egg laying.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Agelaius
tricolor
tricolored
blackbird
None,
Threatened
G1G2, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic to California.,
Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area
with insect prey within a few km of the
colony.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens
southern
California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
None, None G5T3, S4,

CDFW-WL
Resident in Southern California
coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed
chaparral., Frequents relatively steep,
often rocky hillsides with grass and
forb patches.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 33
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Anniella
stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
None, None G3, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Generally south of the Transverse
Range, extending to northwestern Baja
California. Occurs in sandy or loose
loamy soils under sparse vegetation.

Disjunct populations in the Tehachapi
and Piute Mountains in Kern County.,
Variety of habitats; generally in moist,
loose soil. They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Antrozous
pallidus pallid bat None, None G4, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands and forests. Most common
in open, dry habitats with rocky areas
for roosting., Roosts must protect bats
from high temperatures. Very sensitive
to disturbance of roosting sites.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Arenaria
paludicola
marsh
sandwort
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Marshes and swamps., Growing up
through dense mats of Typha, Juncus,
Scirpus, etc. in freshwater marsh.

Sandy soil. 3-170 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 34
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Arizona
elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake None, None G5T2, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Patchily distributed from the eastern
portion of San Francisco Bay, southern
San Joaquin Valley, and the Coast,
Transverse, and Peninsular ranges,
south to Baja California., Generalist
reported from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with loose or
sandy soils.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Artemisia
palmeri
San Diego
sagewort None, None G3?, S3?, 4.2
Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Riparian
forest, Riparian scrub, Riparian
woodland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Artemisiospiza
belli belli Bell's sparrow None, None
G5T2T3,
S3, CDFWWL
Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly
dense stands of chamise. Found in
coastal sage scrub in south of range.,
Nest located on the ground beneath a
shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above
ground. Territories about 50 yds apart.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orangethroated
whiptail
None, None G5, S2S3,

CDFW-WL
Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub,
chaparral, and valley-foothill
hardwood habitats., Prefers washes
and other sandy areas with patches of
brush and rocks. Perennial plants
necessary for its major food: termites.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 35
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Aspidoscelis
tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail None, None G5T5, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Found in deserts and semi-arid areas
with sparse vegetation and open
areas. Also found in woodland and
riparian areas., Ground may be firm
soil, sandy, or rocky.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort None, None G3?, S4, 4.2
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Astragalus
hornii var.
hornii
Horn's milkvetch None, None GUT1, S1,
1B.1
Meadows and seeps, playas., Lake
margins, alkaline sites. 75-350 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Athene
cunicularia burrowing owl
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G4, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low-growing
vegetation., Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Berberis
nevinii
Nevin's
barberry
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian scrub., On
steep, N-facing slopes or in low grade
sandy washes. 90-1590 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 36
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Bombus
crotchii
Crotch's
bumble bee
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G2, S2
Coastal California east to the SierraCascade crest and south into Mexico., Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee None, None G3G4, S2
, Long-tongued; forages on a wide
variety of flowers including vetches
(Vicia), clovers (Trifolium), thistles
(Cirsium), sunflowers (Helianthus),
etc. Nests above ground under long
grass or underground. Queens
overwinter in rotten wood or
underground.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Buteo regalis ferruginous
hawk None, None G4, S3S4, CDFW-WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush flats,
desert scrub, low foothills and fringes
of pinyon and juniper habitats., Eats
mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels,
and mice. Population trends may
follow lagomorph population cycles.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 37
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Buteo
swainsoni
Swainson's
hawk
None,
Threatened G5, S4
Breeds in grasslands with scattered
trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, savannahs, and agricultural or
ranch lands with groves or lines of
trees., Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or
alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent
populations.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily None, None G4, S4, 4.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest., Occurs on rocky and sandy
sites, usually of granitic or alluvial
material. Can be very common after
fire. 60-2500 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Carex comosa bristly sedge None, None G5, S2,
2B.1
Marshes and swamps, coastal prairie,
valley and foothill grassland., Lake
margins, wet places; site below sea
level is on a Delta island. -5-1010 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker
Threatened,
None
G1, S1,

CDFW-SSC
Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south
coastal streams., Habitat generalists,
but prefer sand-rubble-boulder
bottoms, cool, clear water, and algae.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 38
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Caulanthus
simulans
Payson's
jewelflower None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis
smooth tarplant None, None G3G4T2,
S2, 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland,
chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, riparian woodland., Alkali
meadow, alkali scrub; also in
disturbed places. 5-1170 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
None, None G5T3T4,
S3S4
Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands,
sagebrush, etc. in western San Diego,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los
Angeles Counties, inclusive of Orange
County., Sandy, herbaceous areas,
usually in association with rocks or
coarse gravel.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Chloropyron
maritimum
ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
Endangered,
Endangered
G4?T1, S1,
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, coastal dunes.,
Limited to the higher zones of salt
marsh habitat. 0-10 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Chorizanthe
leptotheca
Peninsular
spineflower None, None G3, S3, 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 39
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Chorizanthe
parryi var.
parryi
Parry's
spineflower None, None G3T2, S2, 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland., Dry slopes and flats;
sometimes at interface of 2 vegetation
types, such as chaparral and oak
woodland. Dry, sandy soils. 90-1220
m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckooThreatened,
Endangered G5T2T3, S1
Riparian forest nester, along the
broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger
river systems., Nests in riparian
jungles of willow, often mixed with
cottonwoods, with lower story of
blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Coleonyx
variegatus
abbotti
San Diego
banded gecko None, None
G5T5,
S1S2,

CDFW-SSC
Coastal and cismontane Southern
California., Found in granite or rocky
outcrops in coastal scrub and
chaparral habitats.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning-glory None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 40
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake None, None G4, S3, CDFW-SSC
Chaparral, woodland, grassland, and
desert areas from coastal San Diego
County to the eastern slopes of the
mountains., Occurs in rocky areas and
dense vegetation. Needs rodent
burrows, cracks in rocks or surface
cover objects.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Cuscuta
obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
Peruvian
dodder None, None G5T4?, SH, 2B.2
Marshes and swamps (freshwater).,
Freshwater marsh. 15-280 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Dipodomys
merriami
parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Endangered,
Endangered
G5T1, S1,

CDFW-SSC
Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy
loam substrates characteristic of
alluvial fans and flood plains., Needs
early to intermediate seral stages.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat
Threatened,
Threatened G2, S3
Primarily annual and perennial
grasslands, but also occurs in coastal
scrub and sagebrush with sparse
canopy cover., Prefers buckwheat,
chamise, brome grass and filaree. Will
burrow into firm soil.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 41
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage
scrub)., Flood deposited terraces and
washes; associates include Encelia,
Dalea, Lepidospartum, etc. Sandy
soils. 200-765 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Empidonax
traillii extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
Endangered,
Endangered G5T2, S3 Riparian woodlands in Southern California., Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark None, None G5T4Q, S4,

CDFW-WL
Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma
County to San Diego County. Also
main part of San Joaquin Valley and
east to foothills., Short-grass prairie,
"bald" hills, mountain meadows, open
coastal plains, fallow grain fields,
alkali flats.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Eriastrum
densifolium
ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar
Endangered,
Endangered
G4T1, S1,
1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral., In sandy
soils on river floodplains or terraced
fluvial deposits. 180-705 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 42
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Eugnosta
busckana
Busck's
gallmoth None, None G1G3,
S2S3
Coastal southern California., Tiny
micro-moth (1 cm) with larva forming
galls on host plant Encelia californica
(California brittlebush). Adult flight
period is during winter, generally from
November to February, and have been
reported at UV lights and porch lights.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Eumops
perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat None, None
G4G5T4,
S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats,
including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands,
chaparral, etc., Roosts in crevices in
cliff faces, high buildings, trees and
tunnels.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Euphydryas
editha quino
quino
checkerspot
butterfly
Endangered,
None
G4G5T1T2,
S1S2
Sunny openings within chaparral and
coastal sage shrublands in parts of
Riverside and San Diego counties.,
Hills and mesas near the coast. Need
high densities of food plants Plantago
erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus
purpurescens.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 43
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Falco
columbarius merlin None, None G5, S3S4, CDFW-WL
Seacoast, tidal estuaries, open
woodlands, savannahs, edges of
grasslands and deserts, farms and
ranches., Clumps of trees or
windbreaks are required for roosting in
open country.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Galium
californicum
ssp. primum
Alvin Meadow
bedstraw None, None G5T2, S2, 1B.2
Chaparral, lower montane coniferous
forest., Grows in shade of trees and
shrubs at the lower edge of the pine
belt, in pine forest-chaparral ecotone.

Granitic, sandy soils. 1460-1830 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None, None G1, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Native to streams from Malibu Creek
to San Luis Rey River basin. Introduced
into streams in Santa Clara, Ventura,
Santa Ynez, Mojave and San Diego
river basins., Slow water stream
sections with mud or sand bottoms.

Feeds heavily on aquatic vegetation
and associated invertebrates.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Helianthus
nuttallii ssp.
parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower None, None G5TX, SX,
1A
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt
and freshwater)., 35-1525 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 44
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Hordeum
intercedens vernal barley None, None G3G4, S3S4, 3.2
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley
and foothill grassland (depressions,
saline flats), Vernal pools
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Horkelia
cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia None, None G4T1, S1,
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub., Sandy or gravelly sites.
15-1645 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Icteria virens yellowbreasted chat None, None G5, S4,

CDFW-SSC
Summer resident; inhabits riparian
thickets of willow and other brushy
tangles near watercourses., Nests in
low, dense riparian, consisting of
willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages
and nests within 10 ft of ground.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Imperata
brevifolia
California
satintail None, None G3, S3,
2B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian
scrub, mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps (alkali), riparian
scrub., Mesic sites, alkali seeps,
riparian areas. 3-1495 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Juglans
californica
Southern
California black
walnut
None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland
Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 45
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Lanius
ludovicianus
loggerhead
shrike None, None G4, S4,

CDFW-SSC
Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyonjuniper, Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub and
washes., Prefers open country for
hunting, with perches for scanning,
and fairly dense shrubs and brush for
nesting.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Lasiurus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat None, None G4G5, S3, CDFW-SSC
Found in valley foothill riparian, desert
riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats., Roosts in trees, particularly
palms. Forages over water and among
trees.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields None, None G4T2, S2,
1B.1
Coastal salt marshes, playas, vernal
pools., Usually found on alkaline soils
in playas, sinks, and grasslands. 1-
1375 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None,
Threatened
G3T1, S2,

CDFW-FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet
meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering larger
bays., Needs water depths of about 1
inch that do not fluctuate during the
year and dense vegetation for nesting
habitat.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass None, None G5T3, S3,

4.3 Chaparral, coastal scrub., Dry soils,
shrubland. 4-1435 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 46
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Lepus
californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
None, None G5T3T4,
S3S4
Intermediate canopy stages of shrub
habitats and open shrub / herbaceous
and tree / herbaceous edges., Coastal
sage scrub habitats in Southern
California.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Lycium
parishii
Parish's desertthorn None, None G4, S1,
2B.3
Coastal scrub, Sonoran desert scrub.,
-3-570 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Malacothamn
us parishii
Parish's
bushmallow None, None GXQ, SX, 1A
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub., In a
wash. 305-455 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Monardella
pringlei
Pringle's
monardella None, None GX, SX, 1A Coastal scrub., Sandy hills. 300-400 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's water
cress
Endangered,
Threatened
G1, S1,
1B.1
Marshes and swamps., Freshwater
and brackish marshes at the margins
of lakes and along streams, in or just
above the water level. 5-305 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Neolarra alba white cuckoo
bee None, None GH, SH
Known only from localities in Southern
California., Cleptoparasitic in the
nests of perdita bees.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 47
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Neotoma
lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert woodrat None, None
G5T3T4,
S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Coastal scrub of Southern California
from San Diego County to San Luis
Obispo County., Moderate to dense
canopies preferred. They are
particularly abundant in rock
outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed freetailed bat None, None G5, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Variety of arid areas in Southern
California; pine-juniper woodlands,
desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash,
desert riparian, etc., Rocky areas with
high cliffs.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
steelhead -
southern
California DPS
Endangered,
Candidate
Endangered
G5T1Q, S1
Federal listing refers to populations
from Santa Maria River south to
southern extent of range (San Mateo
Creek in San Diego County)., Southern
steelhead likely have greater
physiological tolerances to warmer
water and more variable conditions.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 48
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Onychomys
torridus
ramona
southern
grasshopper
mouse
None, None G5T3, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Desert areas, especially scrub
habitats with friable soils for digging.

Prefers low to moderate shrub cover.,
Feeds almost exclusively on
arthropods, especially scorpions and
orthopteran insects.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse None, None
G5T2,
S1S2,

CDFW-SSC
Lower elevation grasslands and
coastal sage communities in and
around the Los Angeles Basin., Open
ground with fine, sandy soils. May not
dig extensive burrows, hiding under
weeds and dead leaves instead.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard None, None G4, S4,

CDFW-SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats,
most common in lowlands along
sandy washes with scattered low
bushes., Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose soil
for burial, and abundant supply of ants
and other insects.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 49
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Threatened,
None
G4G5T3Q,
S2, CDFWSSC
Obligate, permanent resident of
coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft in
Southern California., Low, coastal
sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas
and slopes. Not all areas classified as
coastal sage scrub are occupied.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Rana muscosa
southern
mountain
yellow-legged
frog
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S2,

CDFW-WL
Disjunct populations known from
southern Sierras (northern DPS) and
San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San
Jacinto Mtns (southern DPS). Found at
1,000 to 12,000 ft in lakes and creeks
that stem from springs and snowmelt.

May overwinter under frozen lakes.,
Often encountered within a few feet of
water. Tadpoles may require 2 - 4 yrs
to complete their aquatic
development.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 50
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
Endangered,
None G1T1, S1
Found only in areas of the Delhi Sands
formation in southwestern San
Bernardino and northwestern
Riverside counties., Requires fine,
sandy soils, often with wholly or partly
consolidated dunes and sparse
vegetation. Oviposition req. shade.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Rhinichthys
gabrielino
Santa Ana
speckled dace
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G5T1, S1
Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San
Gabriel rivers. May be extirpated from
the Los Angeles River system.,
Requires permanent flowing streams
with summer water temps of 17-20 C.

Usually inhabits shallow cobble and
gravel riffles.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Ribes
divaricatum
var. parishii
Parish's
gooseberry None, None G5TX, SX, 1A
Riparian woodland., Salix swales in
riparian habitats. 65-300 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
None, None G1, S1.1 Coastal scrub This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Romneya
coulteri
Coulter's
matilija poppy None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 51
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Salvadora
hexalepis
virgultea
coast patchnosed snake None, None G5T4, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Brushy or shrubby vegetation in
coastal Southern California., Require
small mammal burrows for refuge and
overwintering sites.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort None, None G3, S2, 2B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub., Drying alkaline flats.
20-1020 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Setophaga
petechia yellow warbler None, None G5, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Riparian plant associations in close
proximity to water. Also nests in
montane shrubbery in open conifer
forests in Cascades and Sierra
Nevada., Frequently found nesting and
foraging in willow shrubs and thickets,
and in other riparian plants including
cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and
alders.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom None, None G4, S2, 2B.2
Playas, chaparral, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, Mojavean
desert scrub., Alkali springs and
marshes. 3-2380 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Southern
Coast Live Oak
Riparian
Forest
Southern Coast
Live Oak
Riparian Forest
None, None G4, S4 Riparian forest This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 52
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow
Riparian
Forest
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow Riparian
Forest
None, None G3, S3.2 Riparian forest This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Southern
Riparian Scrub
Southern
Riparian Scrub None, None G3, S3.2 Riparian scrub This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Southern
Sycamore
Alder Riparian
Woodland
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian
Woodland
None, None G4, S4 Riparian woodland This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Spea
hammondii
western
spadefoot
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G2G3,
S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats,
but can be found in valley-foothill
hardwood woodlands., Vernal pools
are essential for breeding and egglaying.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass None, None G5, S2, 2B.2
Cismontane woodland, meadows and
seeps., Open moist sites, along rivers
and springs, alkaline desert seeps. 15-
2625 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Spinus
lawrencei
Lawrence's
goldfinch None, None G3G4, S4
Nests in open oak or other arid
woodland and chaparral, near water.

Nearby herbaceous habitats used for
feeding., Closely associated with oaks.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 53
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Streptocephal
us woottoni
Riverside fairy
shrimp
Endangered,
None G1G2, S2
Endemic to Western Riverside,
Orange, and San Diego counties in
areas of tectonic swales/earth slump
basins in grassland and coastal sage
scrub., Inhabit seasonally astatic
pools filled by winter/spring rains.

Hatch in warm water later in the
season.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Symphyotrich
um defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
Meadows and seeps, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, marshes
and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland., Vernally mesic grassland
or near ditches, streams and springs;
disturbed areas. 3-2045 m.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Taxidea taxus American
badger None, None G5, S3, CDFW-SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of
most shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats, with friable soils., Needs
sufficient food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on
burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 54
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake None, None G4, S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Coastal California from vicinity of
Salinas to northwest Baja California.

From sea to about 7,000 ft elevation.,
Highly aquatic, found in or near
permanent fresh water. Often along
streams with rocky beds and riparian
growth.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Thamnophis
sirtalis pop. 1
south coast
gartersnake None, None
G5T1T2,
S1S2,

CDFW-SSC
Southern California coastal plain from
Ventura County to San Diego County,
and from sea level to about 850 m.,
Marsh and upland habitats near
permanent water with good strips of
riparian vegetation.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's
vireo
Endangered,
Endangered G5T2, S3
Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in vicinity of
water or in dry river bottoms; below
2000 ft., Nests placed along margins
of bushes or on twigs projecting into
pathways, usually willow, Baccharis,
mesquite.

Suitable habitat for this species
does not occur on site. As such,
this species is considered absent
from the Project site.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION FOR THE PROPOSED LOMA LINDA APARTMENTS PROJECT Jennings Environmental Page | 55
Coding and Terms
E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected WL = Watch List SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare State Species of Special Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited acreages, and/or continuing threats. Raptor and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird.”
State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

Global Rankings (Species or Natural Community Level):

G1 = Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.

G2 = Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.

G3 = Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

G4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

G5 = Secure – Common; widespread and abundant.
? = Uncertainty in the exact status of an element (could move up or down one direction from current rank) Subspecies Level: Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea.

State Ranking:

S1 = Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S2 = Imperiled – Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S3 = Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare in the State; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

S5 = Secure – Common, widespread, and abundant in the State.

California Rare Plant Rankings (CNPS List):
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere. 2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 3 = Plants about which more information is needed; a review list. 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.

Threat Ranks:
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 56
Attachment C
Phase I Cultural Resources and
Paleontological Assessment

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE BARTON ROAD AND

CALIFORNIA STREET PROJECT

CITY OF LOMA LINDA,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0292-162-21 and -22
Submitted to:

City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, California 92354
Prepared for:

Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Prepared by:

BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
November 14, 2024
Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i
Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Kathleen A. Krogh, B.A. and Andrew J. Garrison, M.A, RPA Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Client/Project Proponent: Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Report Date: November 13, 2024
Report Title: Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey
USGS Quadrangle: Portion of unsectioned former Rancho San Bernardino Township 1 South, Range 3 West, of the San Bernardino
Baseline and Meridian on the USGS Redlands, California (7.5 minute) topographic quadrangle.

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0292-162-21 and -22
Acreage: 5.15 acres
Key Words: Survey; SBR-10,877H; P-36-16417; the previously listed sites are not extant; Redlands USGS Quadrangle; no further archaeological study recommended.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT........................................................................ iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1

1.1 Project Description............................................................................................1.0–1

1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1

1.3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................1.0–5

1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search .................................................1.0–14

1.5 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................1.0–17

1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act.....................................................1.0–17

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN.............................................................................................2.0–1

3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1

3.1 Survey Methods................................................................................................3.0–1

3.2 Results of the Field Survey...............................................................................3.0–1

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………….4.0–1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED.......................5.0–1

6.0 CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................6.0–1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED……………………………………………………………7.0–1
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map...................................................................................1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3 Figure 1.1–3 Site Plan Map .................................................................................................1.0–4 List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the southwest portion of the project, facing northeast................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the southeast portion of the project, facing northwest…………3.0–2 Plate 3.2–3 Overview of catch basin from northwest portion of the project, facing southeast...........................................................................................................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–4 Overview of plastic culvert in northwest portion of the project, facing northwest..........................................................................................................3.0–3 List of Tables
Table Description Page
Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources within One-Half Mile of the Project…………………...1.0–15 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request from the project applicant, a archaeological assessment was conducted by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the proposed Barton Road and California Street Project. The project consists of a proposal to construct an apartment complex and associated infrastructure. The 5.15-acre project is located northeast of the intersection of Barton Road and California Street in the city of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. The project, which includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0292-162-21 and -22, is situated within a portion of the unsectioned former Rancho San Bernardino, Township 1 South, Range 3 West on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Redlands, California topographic quadrangle map.

The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Loma Linda’s environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The archaeological investigation of the project also includes a review of an archaeological records search performed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project or in the immediate vicinity. The records search results identified two resources recorded within the subject property that are no longer extant (SBR-10,877H and P-36-016417). Further, the records search also identified four studies that overlap the project (Hathaway 1988; Dahdul 2003; Tang 2003; Smallwood 2007). Based upon the records search, the subject property has been previously studied for cultural resources and subsequently graded for development. This grading, which occurred between October 2004 and May 2005, was monitored by an archaeologist and Native American representatives from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and did not result in the recordation of any resources within the current project boundaries (Smallwood 2007). A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was also requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and returned with positive results.

BFSA conducted an archaeological survey of the property on October 23, 2024. Survey conditions were generally good. The survey of the subject property did not result in the identification of any cultural resources. The survey results demonstrated that no remnants of sites SBR-10,877H and P-36-016417 are present within the subject property. Further, the survey results confirmed that the entire property has been previsouly graded. Due to the previous grounddisturbing activities and results of the current survey, there is little to no potential for any significant cultural resources to be present or impacted by the proposed project. Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or archaeological monitoring is recommended as a condition of permit approval. A copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the Barton Road and California Street Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Loma Linda environmental guidelines.

The 5.15-acre project, which includes APNs 0292-162-21 and -22, is located northeast of the intersection of Barton Road and California Street in the city of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The project is situated within a portion of the unsectioned former Rancho San Bernardino, Township 1 South, Range 3 West, of the USGS Redlands, California topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1.1–2). The project is bounded by multi-family residential developments to the north and east, Barton Road to the south, and commercial developments to the west. As designed, the project proposes the construction of a new residential apartment complex along with associated infrastructure (Figure 1.1–3). The decision to request this investigation was based upon cultural resource sensitivity of the locality as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling.

Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which in southwestern San Bernardino County were focused around freshwater resources and a food supply.

1.2 Environmental Setting
The Barton Road and California Street Project is located within the San Bernardino Valley, north of the San Timoteo Wash. The western extent of the San Jacinto Mountain Range is located to the south of the property and the San Bernardino Mountain Range is located to the north. The Santa Ana River, which runs east to west from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, is approximately 2.9 miles north of the property. The subject property is relatively flat with an average elevation of 1,197 feet above mean sea level.

The project is generally situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California. The range, which lies in a northwest to southeast trend through the county, extends some 1,000 miles from the Raymond-Malibu Fault Zone in western Los Angeles County to the southern tip of Baja California. Geologically, the subject property is described as Holocene-aged surficial deposits consisting of alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels (Dibblee and Minch 2003). The specific soil types found within the project consist of Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, and Metx course sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (NRCS 2019).

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–5

1.3 Cultural Setting
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex, the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex, and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino, Serrano, and potentially the Vanyume Indians. According to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino Valley and just missing Riverside County.

However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.

Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP).

Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).

Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995).

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–6
Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).

The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the coast by eroding the coastline and flooding valley floors (Curray 1965; Inman 1983).

Shorelines were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).

At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters 1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects on the types of resources available to prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten, but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000). The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water, and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants, including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).

The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate.

Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–7
400 and 600, and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead.

Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet.

Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or longestablished lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society.

Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–8
Kroeber 1976).

Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.

Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status, and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earthcovered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts, and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs. Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush.

Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–9
carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:

The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were, one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal holdings. (Strong [1971] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.

The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).

According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon “economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California” (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large, autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males.

However, even after marriage, women would still keep their original lineage and would still participate in those ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).

According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:

There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death, supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power-access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–10
and tales relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster-transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer, using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).

Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband, wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).

The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality.

Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots, bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978).

Earth ovens were used to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).

The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinewbacked bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bullroarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches, cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–11
Historic Period
The historic background of the project began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). In the late eighteenth century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing southern California, gradually expanding their use of the interior valley (into what is now western Riverside County) for growing grain and raising cattle to support the missions (Riverside County n.d.). The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in what is now San Bernardino, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, while the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998).

The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1964). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).

Native Californians may have first coalesced with Europeans around 1769 when the first Spanish mission was established in San Diego. In 1771, Friar Francisco Graces first searched the Californian desert for potential mission sites. Interactions between local tribes and Franciscan priests definitely occurred by 1774 when Juan Bautista De Anza made an exploration of Alta California.

Serrano contact with the Europeans may have occurred as early as 1771 or 1772, but it was not until approximately 1819 that the Spanish directly influenced the culture. The Spanish established asistencias in San Bernardino, Pala, and Santa Ysabel. Between the founding of the asistencia and secularization in 1834, most of the Serranos in the San Bernardino Mountains were removed to the nearby missions (Beattie and Beattie 1951:366) while the Cahuilla maintained a high level of autonomy from Spain (Bean 1978).

Spain encouraged settlement in California by issuing a number of land grants, which provided individuals the right to use Spanish-owned property. The first Spanish land grant was issued to Juan José Domínguez in 1784. In total, Spain issued 22 land grants between the years of 1784 to 1821. When Mexico gained independence, the Mexican government gained control of Baja and Alta California. The Mexican government reclaimed the land Spain granted to the missions and continued to issue land grants to individuals.

While no missions were ever built in what would become San Bernardino County, many mission outposts, or asistencias, were established in the early years of the nineteenth century to extend the missions’ influence to the backcountry (Brigandi 1998). The asistencia in San Bernardino County was located in Redlands.

Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–12
the end of the Mission Period (Brigandi 1998; Riverside County n.d.). By this time, the missions owned some of the best and most fertile land in southern California. In order for California to develop, the land would have to be made productive enough to turn a profit (Brigandi 1998).

The new government began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected Mexican citizens. The “grants” were called “ranchos,” and many of these ranchos have lent their names to modern-day locales (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998). The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the privately owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system becomes evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from the San Luis Rey mission petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros:

We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev. Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21)
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans as compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The ranchers, both Mexican and American, did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976).

In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States, and in 1850, California became a state. These events generated a steady flow of settlers into the area, including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health-seekers, speculators, politicians, adventurers, seekers of religious freedom, and individuals desiring to create utopian colonies. As the nonnative population increased through immigration, the indigenous population rapidly declined from the high morbidity of European diseases, low birth rates, and conflict and violence.

California became a state in 1850 and was divided into 21 counties. The dwindling native populations were eventually displaced into reservations after California became a state.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–13
By the late 1880s and early 1890s, there was growing discontent between San Bernardino and Riverside, its neighbor 10 miles to the south, due to differences in opinion concerning religion, morality, the Civil War, politics, and fierce competition to attract settlers. After a series of instances in which charges were claimed about unfair use of tax monies to the benefit of only the city of San Bernardino, several people from Riverside decided to investigate the possibility of a new county. In May of 1893, voters living within portions of San Bernardino County (to the north) and San Diego County (to the south) approved the formation of Riverside County. Early business opportunities were linked to the agriculture industry, but commerce, construction, manufacturing, transportation, and tourism also provided a healthy local economy.

General History of the Loma Linda Area
The city of Loma Linda was officially incorporated in 1970 (City of Loma Linda n.d.).

However, the history of the Loma Linda area is tied to neighboring San Bernardino and Redlands. Spanish missionaries formed Mission San Gabriel in the San Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century. The mission established Rancho San Bernardino in 1819 (City of San Bernardino 2015). Since there was no reliable water source in the area, from 1819 to 1820, the missionaries developed a zanja through the use of Native American labor from the Guachama Rancheria (Smallwood 2006 [SBR-8092/H site form]). The creation of the zanja was implemented to divert waters from Mill Creek all the way through Redlands and ending near the mission to assist with agricultural enterprises. The new water source allowed nearby ranching districts to develop during the nineteenth century (City of Redlands 2010; Smallwood 2006 [SBR-8092/H site form]). The Mill Creek Zanja was nominated to and subsequently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1976, and is still used for local drainage, spreading, and flood control (City of Redlands 2010).

In 1851, 500 Mormons moved to the Redlands/San Bernardino area and purchased the San Bernardino Rancho from the Lugo family (City of Redlands 2010). The settlement that the Mormons created within the rancho was short-lived; however, in 1857, Brigham Young recalled all Mormons in San Bernardino back to Utah. Approximately 1,400 Mormons returned to Utah, while the remaining 45 percent stayed in San Bernardino, choosing “to forsake the church rather than leave their homes” (Lyman 1989).

In 1875, the Southern Pacific Railway was extended through the area to Colton, and new tourist destinations began to pop up in the region. During the early 1880s, the development of Mound City was established in what is now Loma Linda as a tourist stop for railroad travelers (City of San Bernardino n.d.). Mound City consisted of cottages and shops situated within 200 acres surrounding a wood knoll in which a large hotel had been constructed. Regardless, drought, depression, and competition with neighboring Redlands resulted in the abandonment of Mound City (City of San Bernardino n.d.):

In the late 1890s, a group of 40 Los Angeles businessmen and 80 physicians Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _

1.0–14
bought the Mound City Hotel for $15,000.00 and refurbished it as a health resort and convalescent home. The name they selected, “Loma Linda,” is Spanish for “Hill Beautiful.” In all, they invested a total of $155,000 – but this project, too, was destined for failure. In 1904, the resort was closed and remained so for over a year. It was nicknamed “Lonesome Linda.” (City of San Bernardino n.d.) Elder J.A. Burden, an official of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, purchased the hotel, five cottages, a recreation hall, and a farmhouse with equipment along with 76 acres of land for $40,000 for the church’s missionary work. Ellen G. White, a leader in the church, “participated in the dedication ceremonies April 15, 1906” (City of San Bernardino n.d.):

White envisioned a school where medical missionaries, including physicians, could be trained. Her plan was that the Loma Linda facility would be the principal training school on the West Coast. Nursing instruction commenced in 1906 and the first class of nurses graduated in 1907. The Loma Linda Medical College opened on September 23, 1910 and the first class of physicians graduated in 1914. The school evolved into the Loma Linda University and Loma Linda University Medical Center. (City of Loma Linda n.d.)
In 1938, the San Timoteo Creek flooded causing a great amount of damage throughout the area. The creek overflowed again in 1969 flooding two-thirds of Loma Linda and washing away many of the bridges spanning it (Redlands Daily Facts 2012; Patch 2012). The flooding of the creek led to calls for it to be channelized to prevent future floods; however, channelization of a portion of the creek did not begin until 2008.

1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a onehalf mile radius was conducted at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton (Appendix B). The SCCIC records search results indicate 37 cultural resources are located within a one-half mile radius of the project (Table 1.4–1), all of which are historic resources. Of the 37 cultural resources, two sites (SBR-10,877H and P-36-016417) are mapped within the subject property but are no longer extant. Site SBR-10,877H was recorded by CRM Tech in 2003 within the southern portion of the subject property (Dahdul 2003; Smallwood 2003). At the time of recordation, it was characterized as the remnants of a single-family residence including building material fragments and foundation/structure pads, and evaluated as not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Dahdul 2003; Smallwood 2003). Site P-36-016417 consists of the “approximate location” of the former San Bernardino-Sonora Road, a historic wagon trail, and was designated a Point of Historical Interest in 1973 by the Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee (Dahdul 2003). In 2003, CRM Tech recorded the approximate location of the site Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–15
despite no physical remnant of the resource being identified within the subject property nor project vicinity (Tang et al. 2003). Further, the site record for P-36-016417 also affirms that the road was in disuse and replaced as early as 1870 (Ballester 2003; Mengers 2018).

Table 1.4–1
Cultural Resources Within One-Half Mile of the Project
Site Number(s) Site Type
SBR-2307H Historic San Bernardino Asistencia
SBR-6173H Historic Bryn Mawr Town location with associated artifact scatter and cesspit remnants
SBR-7829H Historic single-family property building remnants SBR-8092H Historic Mill Creek Zanja
P-36-012363 Historic Bryn Mawr School
SBR-10,877H and SBR-11,263H Historic foundation(s) and building material fragments
SBR-11,287H Historic trash scatter
SBR-11,854 Historic Native American habitation debris
P-36-016417 Historic San Bernardino-Sonora Road
SBR-10,565H, P-36-013888, P-36-013890, P36-016640, P-36-017049, P-36-019917, P-36- 019922, P-36-019926, P-36-019928, P-36-
019929, P-36-019930, and P-36-020135
Historic single-family property
P-36-019932 Historic ancillary building
P-36-019918 Historic landscaping
SBR-14,790H Historic concrete foundations and trash scatter P-36-023575 Historic irrigation system remnants
SBR-16,314H Historic dairy
P-36-026223 Historic Dental 12kv Distribution Line
SBR-17,211H, SBR-17,212H, P-36-029389, P36-029390, and P-36-029480 Historic road alignment
SBR-17,213H Historic Redlands Central Railway (Dinky)
alignment
P-36-027673 Historic single-family property and ranch complex SBR-29,387H Historic orchard with associated artifact scatter P-36-029388 Historic County Flood Control Channel
The records search results also indicate that 48 cultural resource studies have been conducted within one-half mile of the project, four of which (Hatheway 1988; Dahdul 2003; Tang 2003; Smallwood 2007) overlap the project. The Hatheway (1988) study is a historic structure inventory of the surrounding area, whereas the remaining three studies were all focused Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–16
studies, completed by CRM Tech, for the subject property and surrounding parcels (Dahdul 2003; Tang 2003; Smallwood 2007). The 2003 CRM Tech study details an archaeological survey that included the entirety of the subject property as part of a much larger study area (Dahdul 2003). The Tang (2003) study conducted historical research and archaeological testing for sites SBR-8092H and P-36-020135, which are located outside of the current project boundaries. Further, the 2007 Smallwood study is an archaeological monitoring report prepared as documentation of the grading of the subject property as part of their larger study area, Tentative Parcel Map 16120. The monitoring of the grading of the subject property occurred between October 2004 and May 2005 and included archaeological monitors from CRM Tech and Native American representatives from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. During the monitoring program, no cultural resources were recorded within the Barton Road and California Street Project.

In addition, BFSA reviewed the following historic sources:
• The NRHP Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility
• The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory
• Historic 1954 and 1967 Redlands, California (7.5 minute) USGS topographic maps • Historic 1899, 1901, and 1954 Redlands, California (15 minute) USGS topographic maps
• Historic aerial photographs (1930 to 2024)
These sources did not indicate the presence of any additional archaeological resources within the project. The 1858 historic survey map indicates the presence of a road within the project vicinity that possibly represents the San Bernardino-Sonora Road recorded as Site P-36-016417.

However, subsequent topographic maps from 1899 and 1901, as well as historic aerial images, do not demonstrate the presence of the road within the project or its vicinity. As shown in aerial photographs, the project was used as an orchard from at least 1930 to 1985. Between 1985 and 1994, maintenance of the orchard appears to diminish as significantly less trees are visible in the 1994 photograph. The single-family residence and ancillary structures associated with Site SBR10,877H were constructed in the 1930s, first appearing on the 1938 aerial photograph within the southern-central portion of the subject property. This is corroborated by historic topographic maps that demonstrate the presence of a structure within the southern-central portion of the property in 1954 and 1967. Between 1994 and 2002, the majority of the trees associated with the orchard were removed from the property. Further, aerial images indicate that between 2002 and 2003, the structures associated with Site SBR-10,877H were removed. By 2005, the property appears to have been completely graded and was temporarily utilized as a construction stockyard for the remainder of 2005. This grading corresponds with the monitoring reported on by Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _

1.0–17
Smallwood (2007). Subsequent aerial photographs confirm that the entire property was graded and demonstrate the presence of a catch basin created during grading in the northern half of the project. Since 2006, the project has remained vacant.

BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC to search for the presence of any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within one mile of the project. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search has been returned with positive results for potential sites or locations of Native American importance within the vicinity. The NAHC suggested contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and other local Native American groups for further information. As noted above, the Smallwood (2007) study indicates that the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians participated in monitoring of the grading of the property with CRM Tech between October 2004 and May 2005 and did not result in the recordation of any resources within the current project boundaries. Should additional outreach be required under the official AB 52 Native American consultation process, it will be conducted by the lead agency. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C.

1.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA and City of Loma Linda environmental guidelines provide the guidance for making such a determination.

The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important.

1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey, meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–18
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) 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; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource 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.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) 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 CRHR; or b) 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 PRC or its identification in an Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–19
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, 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,
c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:

1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).

2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply.

3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.

The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.

4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

Section 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.

Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0–20
Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project ±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±

2.0–1

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is southwestern San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the archaeological assessment conducted for the Barton Road and California Street Project included the survey of a 5.15-acre area. Given the area involved and the recorded presence of nearby archaeological sites, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal here is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of a resource to address regional research topics and issues.

Although elementary resource evaluation programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions take into account the small size and location of the project discussed above.

Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual?
• Do the types of any located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited?
• How do located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area?
• How do located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley environments of the region?
'ata 1eeds
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind:

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

2.0–2
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the resource(s), and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural resources identified.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0–1

3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The archaeological assessment of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 5.15-acre project, and the preparation of this technical report. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Loma Linda environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA.

Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (1995).

3.1 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. The entire 5.15-acre property was surveyed by employing 10-meter evenly spaced survey transects while visually inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located were closely inspected. Photographs documenting survey areas and overall survey conditions were taken frequently.

3.2 Results of the Field Survey
BFSA archaeologist James Shrieve conducted the archaeological survey for the Barton Road and California Street Project on October 23, 2024. The archaeological survey of the property was an intensive reconnaissance that covered the entirety of the project. Ground visibility during the survey was characterized as good. Vegetation within the subject property was minimal consisting of sporadic non-native weeds and grasses, which had been recently mowed. The survey confirmed that the property has been previously graded and that a catch basin is present within the northern half of the project (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–3).

Additional disturbances include a plastic culvert entering the northwest corner of the catch basin (Plate 3.2–4). The survey results also confirmed that no elements of sites SBR-10,877H and P-36-016417 are present within the subject property. As such, the survey did not identify any cultural resources within the project.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0–2
Plate 3.2–1: Overview of the southwest portion of the project, facing northeast.

Plate 3.2–2: Overview of the southeast portion of the project, facing northwest.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0–3
Plate 3.2–3: Overview of the catch basin from the northwest portion of the project, facing southeast.

Plate 3.2–4: Overview of the plastic culvert in the northwest portion of the project, facing northwest.

4.0–1

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Phase I archaeological assessment sfor the Barton Road and California Street Project was completed in accordance with City of Loma Linda environmental guidelines and CEQA significance criteria. Based upon the records search results, the general area may be sensitive for cultural resources; however, the subject property has been previously studied for cultural resources and subsequently graded for development. This grading, which occurred between October 2004 and May 2005, was monitored by an archaeologist and Native American representatives from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and did not result in the recordation of any resources within the current project boundaries. Further, despite SBR-10,877H and P-36-016417 being mapped within the project, these sites are no longer extant and no archaeological resources were identified within the subject property during the survey. Further, the survey results corroborated the records search results and the review of historic aerial images, which indicated that the entire property has been previously graded.

Due to the previous ground-disturbing activities and results of the current survey, there is little to no potential for any significant cultural resources to be present or impacted by the proposed project. Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or archaeological monitoring is recommended as a condition of permit approval. A copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5.0–1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Barton Road and California Street Project was directed by Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by BFSA archaeologist James Shrieve. The report text was prepared by Kathleen A. Krogh, B.A, and Andrew J. Garrison, M.A, RPA. Report graphics were provided by Emily T.

Soong. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Payton N. Swanson.

The archaeological records search was requested from the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.

Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project

6.0–1

6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

November 14, 2024
Andrew J. Garrison M.A., RPA Date
Principal Investigator
Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED
American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998 American Local History Network’s Page for Riverside County, California. Electronic document, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/riverside/, accessed March 28, 2006.

Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9-23. Berkeley, California.

Ballester, Daniel
2003 Site record form update for Site P 36-016417. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1951 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California.

Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).

Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California.

City of Loma Linda
N.d. Our History. Electronic document, https://www.lomalinda-ca.gov/our_city/our_ history, accessed January 11, 2022.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–2
City of Redlands
2010 City of Redlands General Plan. On file at City the of Redlands, California.

City of San Bernardino
2015 History of San Bernardino. Electronic document, https://www.ci.sanbernardino.ca.us/about/history/history_of_san_bernardino_(short_version).asp, accessed November 10, 2015.

City of San Bernardino
N.d. Loma Linda. Electronic document, http://www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us/about/ history/streets_n_places/loma_linda.asp, accessed on January 11, 2022.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Curray, Joseph R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723-735. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Dahdul, Miriam
2003 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report. CRM TECH. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Dibblee, T.W. and J.A. Minch
2003 National Geologic Map Database. Electric document, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71736.htm, accessed October 24, 2024.

Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records 1(1):1-52. University of California, Berkeley.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–3
Erlandson, John M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R.H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Fagan, Brian M.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson, London.

Gallegos, Dennis
1985 Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1).

Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. 2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Hatheway, Roger G.
1998 A Windshield Survey and Preliminary Architectural/Historical Inventory of Loma Linda, California. Hatheway & McKenna. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Heizer, Robert F.
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 690-693. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, pp. 1-49. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–4
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Lyman, Edward Leo
1989 The Rise and Decline of Mormon San Bernardino. Brigham Young University Studies 29(4):43-63. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Martin, Paul S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969-974.

Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by Patricia M. Masters and Nicholas C. Fleming, pp. 189-213. Academic Press, London. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1-A19. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.

Mengers, D.
2018 Site record form update for Site P 36-016417. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Miller, Jaquelin Neva
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s Thesis, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Moss, Madonna L. and Jon M. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Pacific Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-46.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–5
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 22, 2021.

Tenorio, Gina
2012 Quakes Not the Only Concern Locals Face, Says Seismologist. Electronic document, https://patch.com/california/redlands/quakes-not-the-only-concern-locals-face-saysseismologist, accessed on January 11, 2022.

Pourade, Richard F.
1964 The Glory Years. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.

Redlands Daily Facts
2012 Recent rains bring of flood of memories. Electronic document, https://www.redlands dailyfacts.com/2012/02/02/recent-rains-bring-of-flood-of-memories/, accessed on January 11, 2022.

Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM Affiliates. Manuscript on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Riverside County
N.d. Welcome to Riverside County, California: Riverside County History. Electronic document, http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/county_info/history.asp, accessed March 28, 2006.

Rogers, Malcolm
1929 Archaeological Field Work in North America During 1928, California. American Anthropologist 31(2): 340-341.

Smallwood, Josh
2003 Site record form for Site SBR-10,877/H. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California. 2006 Site record form for Site SBR-8092/H. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.0–6
2007 Archaeological Monitoring Report: Barton Vineyard Project, Tentative Parcel Map # 16120, City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.

Tang, Bai
2003 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report. CRM TECH. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Tang, Bai, Michael Hogan, Josh Smallwood and Casey Tibbet 2003 Historical Research and Archaeological Testing on Sites CA-SBR-8092H and P 36- 020135. CRM TECH. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, California.

Van Devender, Thomas R. and W. Geoffrey Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science 204(4394):701-710.

Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246-338.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: [email protected] Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009 Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005 Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005 Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
BFSA Environmental Serives, A Perennial Company Poway, California Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private clients and lead agencies.

Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.

Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.

Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grantfunded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.

BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.

Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural resource firms.

Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.

Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.

Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California. 2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of Mills Act application.

BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 3
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. 2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.

Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.

Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Phase I Archaeology Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)

PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE BARTON ROAD AND CALIFORNIA STREET

PROJECT

CITY OF LOMA LINDA,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APNs 0292-162-21 and -22
Prepared for:

Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
Submitted to:

City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, California 92354
Prepared by:

BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
November 14, 2024
Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Paleontological Database Information
Author:

Consulting Firm:

Report Date:

Report Title:

Prepared for:

Submitted to:

USGS Quadrangle:

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:

Study Area:

Key Words:

Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist,
California Professional Geologist No. 7588
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
November 14, 2024
Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project, City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, California 92408
City of Loma Linda
25541 Barton Road
Loma Linda, California 92354
Section 29 (projected), Township 1 South, Range 3 West, of the Redlands, California (7.5-minute) Quadrangle
0292-162-21 and -22

5.15 acres
Paleontological assessment; Holocene alluvial fan deposits; monitoring not recommended.

Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION ................................................................... 1 II. REGULATORY SETTING ................................................................................... 1 State of California.................................................................................................. 1 City of Loma Linda................................................................................................. 4 III. GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 5 IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 5 Definition ............................................................................................................... 5 Paleontological Locality Record Search................................................................. 5 Project Survey ........................................................................................................ 7 V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ................................................................. 7 Overview................................................................................................................ 7 Professional Standards........................................................................................... 7 City of Loma Linda Assessment .............................................................................. 8 VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 8 VII. CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................. 9 VIII. REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 9 Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 General Location Map.............................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Project Location Map............................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Geologic Map .......................................................................................... 6 1 Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
A paleontological resource assessment has been completed for the Barton Road and California Street Project located northeast of the intersection of Barton Road and California Street in the city of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The

5.15-acre project consists of two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 0292-162-21 and -22). On the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (7.5-minute) 1:24,000-scale Redlands, California topographic quadrangle map, the project is located in Section 29 (projected), Township 1 South, Range 3 West, of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (see Figure 2). The project consists of the construction of a residential development.

Currently, the property is undeveloped.

As the lead agency, the City of Loma Linda has required the preparation of a paleontological assessment to evaluate the project’s potential to yield paleontological resources.

The paleontological assessment of the project included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records for previous projects in the area, a review of the underlying geology, and recommendations to mitigate impacts to potential paleontological resources.

II. REGULATORY SETTING
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act, is the overriding environmental regulation that sets the requirement for protecting California’s paleontological resources. CEQA mandates that governing permitting agencies (lead agencies) set their own guidelines for the protection of nonrenewable paleontological resources under their jurisdiction. For this project, policies governing paleontological resources from the City of Loma Linda are reviewed and applied, in accordance with CEQA.

State of California
Under “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,” as amended in December 2018 (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.), procedures define the types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15063 of the CCR provides a process by which a lead agency may review a project’s potential impact to the environment, determine whether the impacts are significant, and provide recommendations, if necessary.

4 Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In CEQA’s Environmental Checklist Form, a question to respond to is, “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). This is to ensure compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, the law that protects nonrenewable resources, including fossils, which is paraphrased below:
a) A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.
b) As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

City of Loma Linda
Paleontological resources are recognized as a significant nonrenewable resource in the General Plan of the City of Loma Linda (2009). According to the City’s Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), development of land within the city limits “could potentially destroy directly or indirectly a unique paleontological resource or site. This is considered a significant impact” (City of Loma Linda 2004). As a result, the following Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.5.5.1A, is required for implementation, and is designed to reduce impacts to a level below significant:

4.5.5.1A. When existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain paleontological resources, a paleontologist shall monitor site grading activities with the authority to halt grading to collect uncovered paleontological resources, curate any resources collected with an appropriate reposition, and file a report with the City Planning Department documenting any paleontological resources that are found during site grading.

The appropriateness of paleontological monitoring at the Barton Road and California Street Project is evaluated in Section V of this report.

Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 III. GEOLOGY
Geomorphically, the project is relatively flat lying, with a gentle slope to the northwest, near the mouth of San Timoteo Canyon. The project is mapped as Holocene-aged young axialvalley deposits (area colored yellow and labeled “Qya3” on Figure 3, after Matti et al. 2003).

These deposits are characterized as slightly consolidated to moderately consolidated sand and gravel deposits. Late Holocene (active) wash deposits of the northwest-flowing San Timoteo Wash occur just southwest of the project (gray streak labeled “Qvyw” on Figure 3).

IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Definition
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010) but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat. Fossils are considered a nonrenewable resource under state and local guidelines (Section II of this report).

Paleontological Locality Record Search
A paleontological collections and locality records search was conducted using prior record searches conducted by the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM), publications, and literature. The nearest-known Pleistocene fossil locality is located about eight miles northwest of the project in San Bernardino, consisting of the remains of a mammoth, recovered from old alluvial deposits during freeway construction work (SBCM locality [loc.] 1.102.1) (San Bernardino County Sun 1958). The San Timoteo Badlands, southeast of the project, are the location of multiple SBCM and LACM fossil localities from the Pleistocene to Pliocene-aged San Timoteo Formation and related deposits; however, most or all of these are several miles distant.

Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 Project Survey
Staff of BFSA Environmental Servies, a Perennial Company, under the supervision of Principal Investigator Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Principal Paleontologist, conducted a project survey on October 23, 2024. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 20 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface. All potentially sensitive areas where paleontological resources might be located were closely inspected. Ground visibility during the survey was characterized as good. Vegetation within the subject property was minimal consisting of sporadic non-native weeds and grasses, which had been recently mowed. A catch basin is present within the northern half of the project.

No paleontological resources, or evidence indicating the presence of paleontological resources, were identified as a result of the survey.

V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Overview
The degree of paleontological sensitivity of any particular area is based on a number of factors, including the documented presence of fossiliferous resources on a site or in nearby areas, the presence of documented fossils within a particular geologic formation or lithostratigraphic unit, and whether or not the original depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have been conducive to the accumulation of organic remains that might have become fossilized over time. Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) and is typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. Pleistocene (over 11,700 years old) alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in the Inland Empire, however, often yield important terrestrial vertebrate fossils, such as extinct mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, extinct species of horse, bison, camel, saber-toothed cats, and others (Jefferson 1991). These Pleistocene sediments are typically accorded a high paleontological resource sensitivity.

Professional Standards
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) has drafted guidelines that include four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units (formations) that might be impacted by a proposed project, as listed below:
• High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered.
• Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment, and that further study is needed to determine the potential of the rock unit. • Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 institutional collections or based on a general scientific consensus that only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
• No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.

Using this criteria, based on the young geologic age of the sediments mapped at the project and the lack of significant nearby fossil localities, the Holocene alluvial deposits can be considered to have a low potential to yield significant paleontological resources.

City of Loma Linda Assessment
The Final EIR rates geologic formations mapped within the city of Loma Linda according to their potential to yield paleontological resources: high, low, and undetermined (City of Loma Linda 2004). The project is mapped within “younger alluvium,” a geologic unit assigned by the Final EIR as having an undetermined paleontological potential. The Final EIR defines an undetermined potential as:

Areas underlain by sedimentary rock units about which literature and unpublished studies are not available have undetermined potential to contain SNPR [significant, nonrenewable paleontologic resources]. A field survey is to be performed by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to make a specific determination of HIGH or LOW potential for SNPR, and to develop a program of mitigation as necessary. If the area lacks exposures and a definitive rating cannot be developed, the rating is treated initially as having a HIGH sensitivity or potential. After study or monitoring, the unit may fall into one of the other categories.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project is mapped as Holocene alluvial fan deposits that generally do not have a high potential to yield fossils, and therefore have a low paleontological sensitivity. The nearest known fossils are several miles distant. The City of Loma Linda has assigned an undetermined paleontological sensitivity to the geologic formation mapped at the project, with a high or low rating to be determined in a paleontological resource study (this report). The conclusions reached in this report strongly support the recommendation that paleontological monitoring is not necessary for the project. As a result, it is recommended that MM 4.5.5.1A not be implemented for the project. A Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) is not warranted.

Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 VII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this paleontological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and have been compiled in accordance with CEQA criteria.

November 14, 2024
Todd A. Wirths Date
Senior Paleontologist
California Professional Geologist No. 7588
VIII. REFERENCES
City of Loma Linda. 2004. City of Loma Linda General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Loma Linda, California, by LSA Associates, Inc., Riverside, California.
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lafco/Proposals/3259/3259_envi_GPEIR_FEIR.pdf.

City of Loma Linda. 2009. City of Loma Linda General Plan San Bernardino County, California. Prepeared for the city of Loma Linda, California, by LSA Associates, Inc., Riverside, California. Electronic document, https://www.lomalindaca.gov/our_city/general_plan.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California: Part two, mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Reports, no. 7: iv + 1-129.

Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F. 2003. Geologic map of the Redlands 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California: U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 03-302.

San Bernardino County Sun. 1958. Workmen unearth relics. Page 11. June 21.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources; by the SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee: https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf.

Paleontological Assessment for the Barton Road and California Street Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Todd A. Wirths, MS, PG No. 7588
Senior Paleontologist
BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road  Suite A 
Phone: (858) 679-8218  Fax: (858) 679-9896  E-Mail: [email protected] Education
Master of Science, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, California 1995 Bachelor of Arts, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 1992 Professional Certifications
California Professional Geologist #7588, 2003
Riverside County Approved Paleontologist
San Diego County Qualified Paleontologist
Orange County Certified Paleontologist
OSHA HAZWOPER 40-hour trained; current 8-hour annual refresher Professional Memberships
Board member, San Diego Geological Society
San Diego Association of Geologists; past President (2012) and Vice President (2011) South Coast Geological Society
Southern California Paleontological Society
Experience
Mr. Wirths has more than a dozen years of professional experience as a senior-level paleontologist throughout southern California. He is also a certified California Professional Geologist. At BFSA, Mr.

Wirths conducts on-site paleontological monitoring, trains and supervises junior staff, and performs all research and reporting duties for locations throughout Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Mr. Wirths was formerly a senior project manager conducting environmental investigations and remediation projects for petroleum hydrocarbonimpacted sites across southern California.

Selected Recent Reports
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the MorningStar Marguerite Project, Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.

BFSA Environmental Services, A Perennial Company, 2
2019 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Nimitz Crossing Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Voltaire 24, LP. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2019 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Prepared for JRT BP 1, LLC.

Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Oceanside Beachfront Resort Project, Oceanside, San California. Prepared for S.D. Malkin Properties. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Nakase Project, Lake Forest, Orange County, San California. Prepared for Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning, Riverside County. Prepared for NP Banning Industrial, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Ortega Plaza Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County.

Prepared for Empire Design Group. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Record Search Update for the Green River Ranch III Project, Green River Ranch Specific Plan SP00-001, City of Corona, California. Prepared for Western Realco. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Imperial Landfill Expansion Project (Phase VI, Segment C-2), Imperial County, California. Prepared for Republic Services, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Manitou Court Logistics Center Project, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Link Industrial. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Del Oro (Tract 36852) Project, Menifee, Riverside County. Prepared for D.R. Horton. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project (Planning Case PR-2020- 000519), City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. Prepared for OZI Alessandro, LLC.

Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Boardwalk Project, La Jolla, City of San Diego.

Prepared for Project Management Advisors, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.

Barton Road Apartments Project CEQA Compliance Memorandum City of Loma Linda April 2025 57
Attachment D
Water Quality Management Plan
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Owner’s Certification
Project Owner’s Certification
This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for ACAA Limited Partnership by Goodman & Associates. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Loma Linda and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a WQMP.

The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm Water Management Program and the intent of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors in interest and the city/county shall be notified of the transfer. The new owner will be informed of its responsibility under this WQMP. A copy of the approved WQMP shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. “I certify under a penalty of law that the provisions (implementation, operation, maintenance, and funding) of the WQMP have been accepted and that the plan will be transferred to future successors.”
.

Project Data
Permit/Application
Number(s): Grading Permit Number(s):

Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): Building Permit Number(s):

CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN 0292-162-21 & 22 Owner’s Signature
Owner Name: Ed Haddad
Title Owner
Company ACAA Limited Partnership
Address 422 Weir Road, San Bernardino, CA 92408
Email [email protected]
Telephone # (909) 809-9658
Signature Date
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Contents
Preparer’s Certification
Project Data
Permit/Application
Number(s): Grading Permit Number(s):

Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): Building Permit Number(s):

CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN 0292-162-21 & 22 “The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control
measures in this plan were prepared under my oversight and meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036.” Engineer: Douglas L. Goodman, P.E. PE Stamp Below
Title Project Manager
Company Goodman & Associates
Address 2079 Sky View Drive, Colton, CA 92324
Email [email protected]
Telephone # 909-824-2775
Signature
Date
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Contents ii
Table of Contents
Section 1 Discretionary Permits............................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Project Description................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Information........................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Property Ownership / Management.............................................................. 2-2

2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants ................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Water Quality Credits ........……………………………………………………………………………. 2-4 Section 3 Site and Watershed Description ............................................................... 3-1 Section 4 Best Management Practices..................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Source Control BMP ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Pollution Prevention ................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices....................................................... 4-7

4.2 Project Performance Criteria......................................................................... 4-8

4.3 Project Conformance Analysis....................................................................... 4-13

4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP .............................................. 4-15

4.3.2 Infiltration BMP .......................................................................................... 4-17

4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP.................................................................................. 4-19

4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP....................................................................................... 4.20

4.3.5 Conformance Summary............................................................................... 4-24

4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP ............................................................... 4-25

4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable)................................................. 4-26 Section 5 Inspection & Maintenance Responsibility Post Construction BMPs........... 5-1 Section 6 Site Plan and Drainage Plan...................................................................... 6-1

6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan.......................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Electronic Data Submittal ............................................................................. 6-1 Forms
Form 1-1 Project Information ............................................................................................... 1-1 Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project......................................................................... 2-1 Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management..................................................................... 2-2 Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern ......................................................................................... 2-3 Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits ......................................................................................... 2-4 Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features ................................................................. 3-1 Form 3-2 Hydrologic Characteristics.................................................................................... 3-2 Form 3-3 Watershed Description.......................................................................................... 3-3 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMP................................................................... 4-2 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMP .......................................................................... 4-5 Form 4.1-3 Site Design Practices Checklist........................................................................... 4-7 Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume ............................. 4-8 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment.......................................................................... 4-9 Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume............................................................... 4-10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Contents iii
Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration .................................................. 4-11 Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff.................................................................... 4-12 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................ 4-14 Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP..................................................... 4-15 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP........................................................................................... 4-18 Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMP ......................................................................................... 4-19 Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP ................................................ 4-20 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment – Bioretention and Planter Boxes w/Underdrains 4-21 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment- Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention 4-22 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment ................................................................................... 4-23 Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate.......... 4-24 Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMP ..................................................................... 4-25 Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-1 Appendix A: Operation and Maintenance Plan
Appendix B: BMP Educational Materials
Appendix C: References and Calculations
Appendix D: Soils Report
WQMP Plan (In Back Pocket)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
1-1
Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s)
Form 1-1 Project Information
Project Name Barton Rd Apartments
Project Owner Contact Name: Ed Haddad
Mailing
Address:
422 Weir Road
San Bernardino, CA 92408
E-mail
Address: [email protected] Telephone: (909) 809-9658 Permit/Application Number(s): Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): APN 0292-162-21 & 22 Additional Information/
Comments:

Description of Project:

The proposed project is for multifamily residential housing. The project site is 5 acres, currently unimproved, along the north side of Barton Road east of California Avenue, in the City of Loma Linda.

Runoff from this proposed project drains to an infiltration basin located along the northerly property lines. Site runoff will be directed to the basin via sheet flow and a minor area drain system. Flows in excess of the water quality design capture volume will be metered out via the existing outlet structure to the storm drain system installed with the apartment property to the north.

The WQMP Plan is located in the enclosed pocket.

Provide summary of Conceptual
WQMP conditions (if previously
submitted and approved). Attach
complete copy.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-1
Section 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Information
This section of the WQMP should provide the information listed below. The information provided for Conceptual/ Preliminary WQMP should give sufficient detail to identify the major proposed site design and LID BMPs and other anticipated water quality features that impact site planning. Final Project WQMP must specifically identify all BMP incorporated into the final site design and provide other detailed information as described herein.

The purpose of this information is to help determine the applicable development category, pollutants of concern, watershed description, and long term maintenance responsibilities for the project, and any applicable water quality credits. This information will be used in conjunction with the information in Section 3, Site Description, to establish the performance criteria and to select the LID BMP or other BMP for the project or other alternative programs that the project will participate in, which are described in Section 4.

Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project
1 Development Category (Select all that apply):

Significant redevelopment involving the
addition or replacement of
5,000 ft2 or more of
impervious surface on an
already developed site
New development
involving the creation of 10,000
ft2 or more of impervious
surface collectively over entire
site
Automotive repair
shops with standard
industrial classification (SIC)
codes 5013, 5014, 5541,
7532- 7534, 7536-7539
Restaurants (with SIC
code 5812) where the land
area of development is
5,000 ft2 or more
Hillside developments of
5,000 ft2 or more which are
located on areas with known
erosive soil conditions or
where the natural slope is
25 percent or more
Developments of 2,500 ft2
of impervious surface or more
adjacent to (within 200 ft) or
discharging directly into
environmentally sensitive areas
or waterbodies listed on the
CWA Section 303(d) list of
impaired waters.

Parking lots of 5,000
ft2 or more exposed to
storm water
Retail gasoline outlets
that are either 5,000 ft2 or
more, or have a projected
average daily traffic of 100
or more vehicles per day
Non-Priority / Non-Category Project May require source control LID BMPs and other LIP requirements. Please consult with local jurisdiction on specific requirements.
2 Project Area (ft2): 224281 3 Number of Dwelling Units: 72 4 SIC Code: 6514 5 Is Project going to be phased? Yes No If yes, ensure that the WQMP evaluates each phase as a distinct DA, requiring LID BMPs to address runoff at time of completion.
6 Does Project include roads? Yes No If yes, ensure that applicable requirements for transportation projects are addressed (see Appendix A of TGD for WQMP)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-2

2.2 Property Ownership/Management
Describe the ownership/management of all portions of the project and site. State whether any infrastructure will transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.) after project completion. State if a homeowners or property owners association will be formed and be responsible for the long-term maintenance of project stormwater facilities. Describe any lotlevel stormwater features that will be the responsibility of individual property owners.

Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management
Describe property ownership/management responsible for long-term maintenance of WQMP stormwater facilities:

This property is privately owned by ACAA Limited Partnership, and they will manage the project and the site. No infrastructure will transfer to the City. The LID BMPs will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-3

2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants
Determine and describe expected stormwater pollutants of concern based on land uses and site activities (refer to Table 3-3 in the TGD for WQMP).

Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Please check:

E=Expected, N=Not
Expected
Additional Information and Comments
Pathogens (Bacterial / Virus) E N From animal wastes
Phosphorous E N From fertilizers and landscaping maintenance activities Nitrogen E N From fertilizers and landscaping maintenance activities Sediment E N From off-site blown-on debris and runoff from planter areas Metals E N From automobile use (brake pad and tire tread wear) Oil and Grease E N From automobile use (leaks)
Trash/Debris E N From off-site blown-on debris and from residents Pesticides / Herbicides E N From landscaping maintenance activities Organic Compounds E N From landscaping maintenance activities Other: E N
Other: E N
Other: E N
Other: E N
Other: E N
Other: E N
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2-4

2.4 Water Quality Credits
A water quality credit program is applicable for certain types of development projects if it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on-site LID. Proponents for eligible projects, as described below, can apply for water quality credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMP or participating in other alternative compliance programs. Refer to Section 6.2 in the TGD for WQMP to determine if water quality credits are applicable for the project.

Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits
1 Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits: Select all that apply Redevelopment projects that
reduce the overall impervious
footprint of the project site.
[Credit = % impervious
reduced]
Higher density
development projects
Vertical density [20%]
7 units/ acre [5%]
Mixed use development,
(combination of residential,
commercial, industrial, office,
institutional, or other land uses
which incorporate design principles
that demonstrate environmental
benefits not realized through single
use projects) [20%]
Brownfield
redevelopment
(redevelop real property
complicated by presence
or potential of hazardous
contaminants) [25%]
Redevelopment projects in
established historic district,
historic preservation area, or
similar significant core city center
areas [10%]
Transit-oriented
developments (mixed use
residential or commercial
area designed to maximize
access to public
transportation) [20%]
In-fill projects (conversion of
empty lots & other underused
spaces < 5 acres, substantially
surrounded by urban land uses, into
more beneficially used spaces, such
as residential or commercial areas)
[10%]
Live-Work
developments (variety of
developments designed
to support residential and
vocational needs) [20%]
2 Total Credit % (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent) Description of Water Quality
Credit Eligibility (if applicable)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-1
Section 3 Site and Watershed Description
Describe the project site conditions that will facilitate the selection of BMP through an analysis of the physical conditions and limitations of the site and its receiving waters. Identify distinct drainage areas (DA) that collect flow from a portion of the site and describe how runoff from each DA (and sub-watershed DMAs) is conveyed to the site outlet(s). Refer to Section 3.2 in the TGD for WQMP. The form below is provided as an example.

Then complete Forms 3.2 and 3.3 for each DA on the project site. If the project has more than one drainage area for stormwater management, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet.

Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features
Site coordinates take GPS
measurement at approximate
center of site
Latitude 34.0490˚N Longitude 117.2244˚W Thomas Bros Map page 649
1 San Bernardino County climatic region: Valley Mountain 2 Does the site have more than one drainage area (DA): Yes No If no, proceed to Form 3-2. If yes, then use this form to show a conceptual schematic describing DMAs and hydrologic feature connecting DMAs to the site outlet(s). An example is provided below that can be modified for proposed project or a drawing clearly showing DMA and flow routing may be attached Conveyance Briefly describe on-site drainage features to convey runoff that is not retained within a DMA DA1 to Outlet 1
Outlet 1
DA1
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-2
Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Areas For Each Drainage Area, provide the following
characteristics DA 1
1 DA drainage area (ft2) 224281
2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 0
3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert
areas, use
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2
0100412_map.pdf
1 4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed
Mapping Tool –
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
A, B
5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 705
6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) .02
7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3
of Hydrology Manual
grass
8 Pre-developed pervious area condition:

Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover
good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos
of site to support rating
Poor
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3-3
Form 3-3 Watershed Description for Drainage Area
Receiving waters
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool -
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
See ‘Drainage Facilities” link at this website
Mission Channel, Santa Ana River Reach 4, Santa Ana River Reach 3, Santa Ana River Reach 2, Santa Ana River Reach 1
Applicable TMDLs
Refer to Local Implementation Plan
Santa Ana River Reach 4: None
Santa Ana River Reach 3: Indicator Bacteria
Santa Ana River Reach 2: None
Santa Ana River Reach 1: None
303(d) listed impairments
Refer to Local Implementation Plan and Watershed
Mapping Tool –
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP and State
Water Resources Control Board website –
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_iss
ues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml
Santa Ana River Reach 4: Indicator Bacteria
Santa Ana River Reach 3: Copper, Indicator Bacteria, Lead Santa Ana River Reach 2: None
Santa Ana River Reach 1: None
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool –
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
NONE
Unlined Downstream Water Bodies
Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool –
http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
Santa Ana River
Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Yes Complete Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Assessment. Include Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 and Hydromodification BMP Form 4.3-10 in submittal No
Watershed–based BMP included in a RWQCB
approved WAP
Yes Attach verification of regional BMP evaluation criteria in WAP • More Effective than On-site LID
• Remaining Capacity for Project DCV
• Upstream of any Water of the US
• Operational at Project Completion
• Long-Term Maintenance Plan
No
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-1
Section 4 Best Management Practices (BMP)

4.1 Source Control BMP

4.1.1 Pollution Prevention
Non-structural and structural source control BMP are required to be incorporated into all new development and significant redevelopment projects. Form 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 are used to describe specific source control BMPs used in the WQMP or to explain why a certain BMP is not applicable. Table 7-3 of the TGD for WQMP provides a list of applicable source control BMP for projects with specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities.

The source control BMP in this table must be implemented for projects with these specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities.

The preparers of this WQMP have reviewed the source control BMP requirements for new development and significant redevelopment projects. The preparers have also reviewed the specific BMP required for project as specified in Forms 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. All applicable non-structural and structural source control BMP shall be implemented in the project.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-2
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One
Describe BMP Implementation OR,
if not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
N1
Education of Property Owners,
Tenants and Occupants on
Stormwater BMPs
Owner shall be provided educational material including but not limited to: litter/trash collection program, water conservation, and guidelines on stormwater quality consistent with City and County guidelines. Educational materials are located in the Appendix of this document N2 Activity Restrictions
Activity restrictions shall include the following: no rubbish, trash, garbage, or other waste material shall be kept or permitted on or adjacent to the site, the common area, or on any public street abutting or visible from the property, except in proper refuse enclosures. No odor shall be permitted to arise therefrom so as to render the property, or any portion thereof, unsanitary, or detrimental to any other property in the vicinity therof or its occupants. Pesticide application shall be by permitted operators only in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

N3 Landscape Management BMPs
Plants with similar water requirements shall be grouped in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff, promote surface filtration, and adhere to City landscape design standards. Landscaping shall be maintained monthly or as required by maintenance personnel, and waste disposed and/or recycled in appropriate bins per City requirements. Fertilizers and amendments shall be applied only per manufacturers specifications.

N4 BMP Maintenance Employees/maintenance staff to be provided with household BMP brochure (included in Section 6).

N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance
(How development will comply) No hazardous waste
N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances The project shall comply with any local water quality ordinances as determined by the City N7 Spill Contingency Plan
Owner will prepare and maintain spill contingency plans as required by local, state, and federal requirements. The plan will require all employees to be trained in spill contingency planning, spill prevention, notification, and cleanup, and will determine what materials, tools and/or equipment that will be required to be kept readily available at all times.

N8 Underground Storage Tank
Compliance Underground storage tanks are not part of this project.

N9
Hazardous Materials Disclosure
Compliance No hazardous waste
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-3
Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One
Describe BMP Implementation OR,
if not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation No hazardous waste N11 Litter/Debris Control Program
The owner shall implement trash management and litter control procedures to prevent off-site migration of trash. Specifically, the owner/operator will inspect the site on a daily basis and will ensure that all litter is removed for proper disposal on a regular basis.

N12 Employee Training
Owner/operator shall provide a training program for all employees upon hiring and annually. Include a litter/trash collection program, water conservation, and guidelines on stormwater quality consistent with County guidelines.

N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Loading Docks are not proposed for this project.

N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program Catch Basin inspection to be part of routine landscape maintenance activities N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and
Parking Lots Owner responsible for monthly sweeping of Private Drives and Parking Lots N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public
Agency Projects n/a, not a public agency
N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES
permits The construction of the project shall comply with the project SWPPP.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-4
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR,
If not applicable, state reason Included Not
Applicable
S1 Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-13)
Catch Basins to be provided with Storm Drain Stenciling, “NO DUMPING – DRAINS TO RIVER” or as otherwise approved. Stencil to be inspected annually and re-applied as needed to maintain readability S2
Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to
reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-34)
No outdoor material storage is proposed
S3
Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to
reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-32)
Area surrounding the trash container area will be graded so drainage is diverted around the trash container area. The dumpster area shall be inspected weekly at minimum. Loose trash and debris in the dumpster area shall be deposited in waste receptacles immediately during inspection.

S4
Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design,
water conservation, smart controllers, and source
control (Statewide Model Landscape Ordinance; CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD-12)
Efficient irrigation will be installed on lots and in public areas. The irrigation system will included devices to prevent low head drainage, overspray and runoff through the use of pressure regulating devices, check valve, flow sensors, proper spacing, low precipitation emission devices and ET or weather based devices. Landscape and irrigation shall be consistent with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinace and the County Landscape Development Standards. Landscape areas used for water quality swales or infiltration areas shall have proper plants for saturated soils, drought tolerance and erosion control qualities. Shade trees shall be used to intercept rainwater and reduce gain on paving.

S5 Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement
Landscaping will comply with this requirement by setting the finish grade of landscape areas a minimum of 1 to 2 inches below adjacent finish surfaces (top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement)
S6
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook
SD-10)
Project will not create concentrated flows on slopes or in channels.

S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-31) There are no loading docks proposed for this project.

S8 Covered maintenance bays with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) Maintenance Bays are not part of this project S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) Vehicle wash areas are not part of this project S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD-36) No outdoor processing areas.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-5
Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One
Describe BMP Implementation OR,
If not applicable, state reason Included
Not
Applicable
S11 Equipment wash areas with spill containment plans
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No proposed outdoor equipment washing areas (not part of this proposal) S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-30) No fueling areas
S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD-10)
S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No food preparation areas.

S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD-33) No car washing
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-6

4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices
Site design practices associated with new LID requirements in the MS4 Permit should be considered in the earliest phases of a project. Preventative site design practices can result in smaller DCV for LID BMP and hydromodification control BMP by reducing runoff generation.

Describe site design and drainage plan including:

Refer to Section 5.2 of the TGD for WQMP for more details.

Form 4.1-3 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Checklist Site Design Practices
If yes, explain how preventative site design practice is addressed in project site plan. If no, other LID BMPs must be selected to meet targets Minimize impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: The project provides ample landscaping areas.

Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No
Explanation: The site uses an infiltration facilities for stormwater treatment Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No Explanation: The project will perpetuate the existing condition drainage pattern. Impervious areas have been minimized to preserve the existing condition time of concentration to the maximum extent practicable.

Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: The grades on the site do not allow for dispersion of runoff into various landscaped areas. Runoff is directed to the proposed infiltration facilities.

Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No Explanation: No existing vegetation on site. No sensitive areas exist on site.

Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No
Explanation: The project provides generous landscaped areas on-site.

Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No Explanation: Plans call out for subgrade around sides and bottom of infiltration facilities to be uncompacted.

Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No Explanation:

Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction : Yes No Explanation:
 A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices  A narrative of how site plan incorporates preventive site design practices  Include an attached Site Plan layout which shows how preventative site design practices are included in WQMP
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-7

4.2 Project Performance Criteria
The purpose of this section of the Project WQMP is to establish targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume), and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream waterbody segments with a HCOC. If the project has more than one outlet for stormwater runoff, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet.

Methods applied in the following forms include:
 For LID BMP Design Capture Volume (DCV), the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires use of the P6 method (MS4 Permit Section XI.D.6a.ii) – Form 4.2-1  For HCOC pre- and post-development hydrologic calculation, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires the use of the Rational Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section D). Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 calculate hydrologic variables including runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff from the project site pre- and post-development using the Hydrology Manual Rational Method approach.

For projects greater than 640 acres (1.0 mi2), the Rational Method and these forms should not be used. For such projects, the Unit Hydrograph Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section E) shall be applied for hydrologic calculations for HCOC performance criteria.

Refer to Section 4 in the TGD for WQMP for detailed guidance and instructions.

Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA 1)
1 Project area DA1 (ft2):
224281
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 58.7%
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): 0.4
Rc = 0.858(Imp%)^3-0.78(Imp%)^2+0.774(Imp%)+0.04
4 Determine 1-hour rainfall depth for a 2-year return period P2yr-1hr (in): 0.466 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.7
P6 = Item 4 *C1, where C1 is a function of site climatic region specified in Form 3-1 Item 1 (Valley = 1.4807; Mountain = 1.909; Desert = 1.2371) 6 Drawdown Rate
Use 48 hours as the default condition. Selection and use of the 24 hour drawdown time condition is subject to approval by the local jurisdiction. The necessary BMP footprint is a function of drawdown time. While shorter drawdown times reduce the performance criteria for LID BMP design capture volume, the depth of water that can be stored is also reduced.
24-hrs
48-hrs
7 Compute design capture volume, DCV (ft3): 11532
DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963) Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-8
Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment (All Drainage Areas) Does project have the potential to cause or contribute to an HCOC in a downstream channel: Yes No Go to: http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/WAP
If “Yes”, then complete HCOC assessment of site hydrology for 2yr storm event using Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 and insert results below (Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 may be replaced by computer software analysis based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual) If “No,” then proceed to Section 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis Condition Runoff Volume (ft3) Time of Concentration (min) Peak Runoff (cfs) Pre-developed
1 16030
Form 4.2-3 Item 12
2 16.02
Form 4.2-4 Item 13
3 3.32
Form 4.2-5 Item 10
Post-developed
4 27486
Form 4.2-3 Item 13
5 7.98
Form 4.2-4 Item 14
6 5.10
Form 4.2-5 Item 14
Difference
7 11456
Item 4 – Item 1
8 8.04
Item 5 – Item 2
9 1.78
Item 6 – Item 3
Difference
(as % of pre-developed)
10 71%
Item 7 / Item 1
11 50%
Item 8 / Item 2
12 54%
Item 9 / Item 3
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-9
Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume (All Drainage Areas) Weighted Curve Number
Determination for:

Pre-developed DA

DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H
1a Land Cover type SEE CALCS IN APP.
2a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
3a DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of
DMA should equal area of DA
4a Curve Number (CN) use Items
1 and 2 to select the appropriate CN
from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for
WQMP
Weighted Curve Number
Determination for:

Post-developed DA

DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H
1b Land Cover type
2b Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
3b DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of
DMA should equal area of DA
4b Curve Number (CN) use Items
5 and 6 to select the appropriate CN
from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for
WQMP
5 Pre-Developed area-weighted CN: 7 Pre-developed soil storage capacity, S (in):

S = (1000 / Item 5) - 10
9 Initial abstraction, Ia (in):

Ia = 0.2 * Item 7
6 Post-Developed area-weighted CN: 8 Post-developed soil storage capacity, S (in):

S = (1000 / Item 6) - 10
10 Initial abstraction, Ia (in):

Ia = 0.2 * Item 8
11 Precipitation for 2 yr, 24 hr storm (in):

Go to: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 12 Pre-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 9)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 9 + Item 7) 13 Post-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 10)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 10 + Item 8) 14 Volume Reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement, (ft3):

VHCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 12
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-10
Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration (All Drainage Areas) Compute time of concentration for pre and post developed conditions for each DA (For projects using the Hydrology Manual complete the form below)
Variables
Pre-developed DA1
Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA
Post-developed DA1
Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA

DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D
1 Length of flowpath (ft) Use Form 3-2
Item 5 for pre-developed condition
SEE CALCS IN APP.
2 Change in elevation (ft)
3 Slope (ft/ft), So = Item 2 / Item 1
4 Land cover
5 Initial DMA Time of Concentration
(min) Appendix C-1 of the TGD for WQMP
6 Length of conveyance from DMA
outlet to project site outlet (ft)
May be zero if DMA outlet is at project
site outlet
7 Cross-sectional area of channel (ft2)
8 Wetted perimeter of channel (ft)
9 Manning’s roughness of channel (n)
10 Channel flow velocity (ft/sec)
Vfps = (1.49 / Item 9) * (Item 7/Item 8)^0.67
* (Item 3)^0.5
11 Travel time to outlet (min)
Tt = Item 6 / (Item 10 * 60)
12 Total time of concentration (min)
Tc = Item 5 + Item 11
13 Pre-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 pre-developed DMA 14 Post-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 post-developed DMA 15 Additional time of concentration needed to meet HCOC requirement (min): TC-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 13 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-11
Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff (All Drainage Areas) Compute peak runoff for pre- and post-developed conditions Variables
Pre-developed DA to Project
Outlet (Use additional forms if
more than 3 DMA)
Post-developed DA to Project
Outlet (Use additional forms if
more than 3 DMA)

DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA A DMA B DMA C
1 Rainfall Intensity for storm duration equal to time of concentration Ipeak = 10^(LOG Form 4.2-1 Item 4 - 0.6 LOG Form 4.2-4 Item 5 /60) SEE CALCS IN APP.
2 Drainage Area of each DMA (ft2)
For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 3 Ratio of pervious area to total area
For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 4 Pervious area infiltration rate (in/hr)
Use pervious area CN and antecedent moisture condition with Appendix C-3 of the TGD for WQMP
5 Maximum loss rate (in/hr)
Fm = Item 3 * Item 4
Use area-weighted Fm from DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 6 Peak Flow from DMA (cfs)
Qp =Item 2 * 0.9 * (Item 1 - Item 5)
7 Time of concentration adjustment factor for other DMA to site discharge point
Form 4.2-4 Item 12 DMA / Other DMA upstream of site discharge point (If ratio is greater than 1.0, then use maximum value of 1.0) DMA A n/a n/a
DMA B n/a n/a
DMA C n/a n/a
8 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Qp =
Item 6DMAA + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAA - Item
5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAA/2] +
[Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC -
Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAA/3]
9 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: N/A Qp
= Item 6DMAB + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAB - Item
5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAB/1] +
[Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC -
Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAB/3]
10 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: N/A
Qp = Item 6DMAC + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAC - Item
5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAC/1] +
[Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB
- Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAC/2]
10 Peak runoff from pre-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 8, 9, and 10 (including additional forms as needed) 11 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Same
as Item 8 for post-developed values
12 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: N/A
Same as Item 9 for post-developed values
13 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: N/A
Same as Item 10 for post-developed values
14 Peak runoff from post-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 11, 12, and 13 (including additional forms as needed) 15 Peak runoff reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement (cfs): 0 Qp-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-12

4.3 Project Conformance Analysis
Complete the following forms for each project site DA to document that the proposed LID BMPs conform to the project DCV developed to meet performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit (WQMP Template Section

4.2). For the LID DCV, the forms are ordered according to hierarchy of BMP selection as required by the MS4 Permit (see Section 5.3.1 in the TGD for WQMP). The forms compute the following for on-site LID BMP:
 Site Design and Hydrologic Source Controls (Form 4.3-2)  Retention and Infiltration (Form 4.3-3)
 Harvested and Use (Form 4.3-4) or
 Biotreatment (Form 4.3-5).

At the end of each form, additional fields facilitate the determination of the extent of mitigation provided by the specific BMP category, allowing for use of the next category of BMP in the hierarchy, if necessary.

The first step in the analysis, using Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP, is to complete Forms 4.3-1 and 4.3-3) to determine if retention and infiltration BMPs are infeasible for the project. For each feasibility criterion in Form 4.3-1, if the answer is “Yes,” provide all study findings that includes relevant calculations, maps, data sources, etc. used to make the determination of infeasibility.

Next, complete Forms 4.3-2 and 4.3-4 to determine the feasibility of applicable HSC and harvest and use BMPs, and, if their implementation is feasible, the extent of mitigation of the DCV.

If no site constraints exist that would limit the type of BMP to be implemented in a DA, evaluate the use of combinations of LID BMPs, including all applicable HSC BMPs to maximize on-site retention of the DCV. If no combination of BMP can mitigate the entire DCV, implement the single BMP type, or combination of BMP types, that maximizes on-site retention of the DCV within the minimum effective area.

If the combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs are unable to mitigate the entire DCV, then biotreatment BMPs may be implemented by the project proponent. If biotreatment BMPs are used, then they must be sized to provide sufficient capacity for effective treatment of the remainder of the volume-based performance criteria that cannot be achieved with LID BMPs (TGD for WQMP Section 5.4.4.2).

Under no circumstances shall any portion of the DCV be released from the site without effective mitigation and/or treatment.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-13
Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (All Drainage Areas) Feasibility Criterion – Complete evaluation for each DA on the Project Site 1 Would infiltration BMP pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Yes No Refer to Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
2 Would installation of infiltration BMP significantly increase the risk of geotechnical hazards? Yes No (Yes, if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert):
 The location is less than 50 feet away from slopes steeper than 15 percent  The location is less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback.  A study certified by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study determines that stormwater infiltration would result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards.

If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
3 Would infiltration of runoff on a Project site violate downstream water rights? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on hydrologic soil group (HSG) D soils or does the site geotechnical investigation indicate presence of soil characteristics, which support categorization as D soils? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
5 Is the design infiltration rate, after accounting for safety factor of 2.0, below proposed facility less than 0.3 in/hr (accounting for soil amendments)? Yes No
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
6 Would on-site infiltration or reduction of runoff over pre-developed conditions be partially or fully inconsistent with watershed management strategies as defined in the WAP, or impair beneficial uses? Yes No See Section 3.5 of the TGD for WQMP and WAP
If Yes, Provide basis: (attach)
7 Any answer from Item 1 through Item 3 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration of any volume is not feasible onsite. Proceed to Form 4.3-4, Harvest and Use BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 9 below. 8 Any answer from Item 4 through Item 6 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration is permissible but is not required to be considered. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP.

If no, then proceed to Item 9, below.
9 All answers to Item 1 through Item 6 are “No”:

Infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, LID infiltration BMP must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the MEP.

Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-14

4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP
Section XI.E. of the Permit emphasizes the use of LID preventative measures; and the use of LID HSC BMPs reduces the portion of the DCV that must be addressed in downstream BMPs. Therefore, all applicable HSC shall be provided except where they are mutually exclusive with each other, or with other BMPs. Mutual exclusivity may result from overlapping BMP footprints such that either would be potentially feasible by itself, but both could not be implemented. Please note that while there are no numeric standards regarding the use of HSC, if a project cannot feasibly meet BMP sizing requirements or cannot fully address HCOCs, feasibility of all applicable HSC must be part of demonstrating that the BMP system has been designed to retain the maximum feasible portion of the DCV. Complete Form 4.3-2 to identify and calculate estimated retention volume from implementing site design HSC BMP. Refer to Section 5.4.1 in the TGD for more detailed guidance.

Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 1 Implementation of Impervious Area Dispersion BMP (i.e. routing runoff from impervious to pervious areas), excluding impervious areas planned for routing to on-lot infiltration BMP: Yes No If yes, complete Items 2-5; If no,
proceed to Item 6
DA 1 DMA A
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA B
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA C
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area (ft2) 3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to impervious area 4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area
dispersion (ft3) V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming retention of 0.5 inches of runoff
5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): 0 Vretention =Sum of Item 4 for all BMPs 6 Implementation of Localized On-lot Infiltration BMPs (e.g. on-lot rain gardens): Yes No If yes, complete Items 7-
13 for aggregate of all on-lot infiltration BMP in each DA; If no, proceed to Item 14
DA 1 DMA A
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA B
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA C
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
7 Ponding surface area (ft2)
8 Ponding depth (ft)
9 Surface area of amended soil/gravel (ft2)
10 Average depth of amended soil/gravel (ft)
11 Average porosity of amended soil/gravel
12 Retention volume achieved from on-lot infiltration (ft3) Vretention = (Item 7 *Item 8) + (Item 9 * Item 10 * Item 11) 13 Runoff volume retention from on-lot infiltration (ft3): 0 Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-15
Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 14 Implementation of evapotranspiration BMP (green,
brown, or blue roofs): Yes No If yes, complete Items 15-20. If no, proceed to Item 21 DA 1 DMA A
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA B
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA C
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
15 Rooftop area planned for ET BMP (ft2)
16 Average wet season ET demand (in/day)
Use local values, typical ~ 0.1
17 Daily ET demand (ft3/day)
Item 15 * (Item 16 / 12)
18 Drawdown time (hrs)
Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1
19 Retention Volume (ft3)
Vretention = Item 17 * (Item 18 / 24)
20 Runoff volume retention from evapotranspiration BMPs (ft3): 0 Vretention =Sum of Item 19 for all BMPs 21 Implementation of Street Trees: Yes No If yes, complete Items 20-2. If no, proceed to Item 24 DA 1 DMA A
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA B
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA C
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
22 Number of Street Trees
23 Average canopy cover over impervious area (ft2)
24 Runoff volume retention from street trees (ft3)
Vretention = Item 22 * Item 23 * (0.05/12) assume runoff retention of

0.05 inches
25 Runoff volume retention from street tree BMPs (ft3): 0 Vretention = Sum of Item 24 for all BMPs 26 Implementation of residential rain barrels/cisterns:

Yes No If yes, complete Items 27-28; If no, proceed to
Item 29
DA 1 DMA A
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA B
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
DA 1 DMA C
BMP Type OpenJointed Pavers
27 Number of rain barrels/cisterns
28 Runoff volume retention from rain barrels/cisterns (ft3) Vretention = Item 27 * 3
29 Runoff volume retention from residential rain barrels/Cisterns (ft3): 0 Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs 30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: 0 Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-16

4.3.2 Infiltration BMPs
Use Form 4.3-3 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed retention and infiltration BMPs. Volume retention estimates are sensitive to the percolation rate used, which determines the amount of runoff that can be infiltrated within the specified drawdown time. The infiltration safety factor reduces field measured percolation to account for potential inaccuracy associated with field measurements, declining BMP performance over time, and compaction during construction. Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP provides guidance on estimating an appropriate safety factor to use in Form 4.3-3.

If site constraints limit the use of BMPs to a single type and implementation of retention and infiltration BMPs mitigate no more than 40% of the DCV, then they are considered infeasible and the Project Proponent may evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs lower in the LID hierarchy of use (Section 5.5.1 of the TGD for WQMP) If implementation of infiltrations BMPs is feasible as determined using Form 4.3-1, then LID infiltration BMPs shall be implemented to the MEP (section 4.1 of the TGD for WQMP). .

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-17
Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP - including underground BMPs (DA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): 11532 Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 BMP Type Use columns to the right to compute runoff volume retention from proposed infiltration BMP (select BMP from Table 5-4 in TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs
DA 1 / DMA A
BMP Type
Infiltration
basin
2 Infiltration rate of underlying soils (in/hr) See Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP for minimum requirements for assessment methods

1.73 3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2 4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 1.35 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 48 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details

3.46 7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 0.55 8 Infiltrating surface area, SABMP (ft2) the lesser of the area needed for infiltration of full DCV or minimum space requirements from Table 5.7 of the TGD for WQMP
15500
9 Amended soil depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 in the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details - 10 Amended soil porosity -
11 Gravel depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details -
12 Gravel porosity -
13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 14 Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 8 * [Item7 + (Item 9 * Item 10) + (Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))]
11877
15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3) Volume determined using manufacturer’s specifications and calculations
-
16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 11877 (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan) 17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 100% Retention% = Item 16 / Form 4.2-1 Item 7 18 Is full LID DCV retained on-site with combination of hydrologic source control and LID retention and infiltration BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10; If no, then reduce Item 3, Factor of Safety to 2.0 and increase Item 8, Infiltrating Surface Area, such that the portion of the site area used for retention and infiltration BMPs equals or exceeds the minimum effective area thresholds (Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP) for the applicable category of development and repeat all above calculations.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-18

4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP
Harvest and use BMP may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing infiltration BMPs. Use Form 4.3-4 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed harvest and use BMPs.

Volume retention estimates for harvest and use BMPs are sensitive to the on-site demand for captured stormwater. Since irrigation water demand is low in the wet season, when most rainfall events occur in San Bernardino County, the volume of water that can be used within a specified drawdown period is relatively low. The bottom portion of Form 4.3-4 facilitates the necessary computations to show infeasibility if a minimum incremental benefit of 40 percent of the LID DCV would not be achievable with MEP implementation of on-site harvest and use of stormwater (Section 5.5.4 of the TGD for WQMP).

Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMPs (All DAs)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3): 0 Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16 BMP Type(s) Compute runoff volume retention from proposed harvest and use BMP (Select BMPs from Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
2 Describe cistern or runoff detention facility
3 Storage volume for proposed detention type (ft3) Volume of cistern
4 Landscaped area planned for use of harvested stormwater (ft2)
5 Average wet season daily irrigation demand (in/day)
Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 in/day
6 Daily water demand (ft3/day) Item 4 * (Item 5 / 12)
7 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1
8 Retention Volume (ft3)
Vretention = Minimum of (Item 3) or (Item 6 * (Item 7 / 24)) 9 Total Retention Volume (ft3) from Harvest and Use BMP 0 Sum of Item 8 for all harvest and use BMP included in plan 10 Is the full DCV retained with a combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10. If no, then re-evaluate combinations of all LID BMP and optimize their implementation such that the maximum portion of the DCV is retained on-site (using a single BMP type or combination of BMP types). If the full DCV cannot be mitigated after this optimization process, proceed to Section 4.3.4.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-19

4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP
Biotreatment BMPs may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs. A key consideration when using biotreatment BMP is the effectiveness of the proposed BMP in addressing the pollutants of concern for the project (see Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP).

Use Form 4.3-5 to summarize the potential for volume based and/or flow based biotreatment options to biotreat the remaining unmet LID DCV w. Biotreatment computations are included as follows:
 Use Form 4.3-6 to compute biotreatment in small volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioretention w/underdrains);  Use Form 4.3-7 to compute biotreatment in large volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. constructed wetlands);  Use Form 4.3-8 to compute sizing criteria for flow-based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioswales) Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP (All DAs) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC,
infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential
biotreatment (ft3): Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16- Form 4.3-4 Item 9
List pollutants of concern Copy from Form 2.3-1.

Pathogens, Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Sediment, Metals, Oil & Grease, Trash/Debris, Pesticides/Herbicides, Organic Compounds
2 Biotreatment BMP Selected
(Select biotreatment BMP(s)
necessary to ensure all pollutants of
concern are addressed through Unit
Operations and Processes, described
in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP)
Volume-based biotreatment
Use Forms 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 to compute treated volume
Flow-based biotreatment
Use Form 4.3-8 to compute treated volume
Bioretention with underdrain
Planter box with underdrain
Constructed wetlands
Wet extended detention
Dry extended detention
Vegetated swale
Vegetated filter strip
Proprietary biotreatment
3 Volume biotreated in volume based
biotreatment BMP (ft3): Form 4.3-6 Item
15 + Form 4.3-7 Item 13
4 Compute remaining LID DCV with
implementation of volume based biotreatment
BMP (ft3): 0 Item 1 – Item 3
5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for
sizing flow based biotreatment BMP:
0% Item 4 / Item 1
6 Flow-based biotreatment BMP capacity provided (cfs): N/A Use Figure 5-2 of the TGD for WQMP to determine flow capacity required to provide biotreatment of remaining percentage of unmet LID DCV (Item 5), for the project’s precipitation zone (Form 3-1 Item 1) 7 Metrics for MEP determination:
 Provided a WQMP with the portion of site area used for suite of LID BMP equal to minimum thresholds in Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP for the proposed category of development: If maximized on-site retention BMPs is feasible for partial capture, then LID BMP implementation must be optimized to retain and infiltrate the maximum portion of the DCV possible within the prescribed minimum effective area. The remaining portion of the DCV shall then be mitigated using biotreatment BMP.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-20
Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment (All DAs) –
Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains
Biotreatment BMP Type
(Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other comparable BMP)
DA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP
2 Amended soil infiltration rate Typical ~ 5.0
3 Amended soil infiltration safety factor Typical ~ 2.0 4 Amended soil design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3
5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12 * Item 4 * Item 5) or Item 6
8 Amended soil surface area (ft2)
9 Amended soil depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
10 Amended soil porosity, n
11 Gravel depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
12 Gravel porosity, n
13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 14 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = Item 8 * [(Item 7/2) + (Item 9 * Item 10) +(Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 15 Total biotreated volume from bioretention and/or planter box with underdrains BMP:

Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-21
Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment (All DAs) –
Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention
Biotreatment BMP Type
Constructed wetlands, extended wet detention, extended dry detention, or other comparable proprietary BMP. If BMP includes multiple modules (e.g. forebay and main basin), provide separate estimates for storage and pollutants treated in each module.

DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
Forebay Basin Forebay Basin
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP forebay and basin
List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP
2 Bottom width (ft)
3 Bottom length (ft)
4 Bottom area (ft2) Abottom = Item 2 * Item 3
5 Side slope (ft/ft)
6 Depth of storage (ft)
7 Water surface area (ft2)
Asurface =(Item 2 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) * (Item 3 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) 8 Storage volume (ft3) For BMP with a forebay, ensure fraction of total storage is within ranges specified in BMP specific fact sheets, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details V =Item 6 / 3 * [Item 4 + Item 7 + (Item 4 * Item 7)^0.5] 9 Drawdown Time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 2.1
10 Outflow rate (cfs) QBMP = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) / (Item 9 * 3600) 11 Duration of design storm event (hrs)
12 Biotreated Volume (ft3)
Vbiotreated = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) +( Item 10 * Item 11 * 3600) 13 Total biotreated volume from constructed wetlands, extended dry detention, or extended wet detention : 0 (Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan)
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-22
Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment (All DAs)
Biotreatment BMP Type
Vegetated swale, vegetated filter strip, or other comparable proprietary BMP
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
DA DMA
BMP Type
(Use additional forms
for more BMPs)
1 Pollutants addressed with BMP
List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in TGD Table 5-5 2 Flow depth for water quality treatment (ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
3 Bed slope (ft/ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
4 Manning's roughness coefficient
5 Bottom width (ft)
bw = (Form 4.3-5 Item 6 * Item 4) / (1.49 * Item 2^1.67 * Item 3^0.5) 6 Side Slope (ft/ft)
BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
7 Cross sectional area (ft2)
A = (Item 5 * Item 2) + (Item 6 * Item 2^2)
8 Water quality flow velocity (ft/sec)
V = Form 4.3-5 Item 6 / Item 7
9 Hydraulic residence time (min)
Pollutant specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details
10 Length of flow based BMP (ft)
L = Item 8 * Item 9 * 60
11 Water surface area at water quality flow depth (ft2) SAtop = (Item 5 + (2 * Item 2 * Item 6)) * Item 10
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-23

4.3.5 Conformance Summary
Complete Form 4.3-9 to demonstrate how on-site LID DCV is met with proposed site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, harvest and use, and/or biotreatment BMP. The bottom line of the form is used to describe the basis for infeasibility determination for on-site LID BMP to achieve full LID DCV, and provides methods for computing remaining volume to be addressed in an alternative compliance plan. If the project has more than one outlet, then complete additional versions of this form for each outlet.

Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative
Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 1)
1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA-1 (ft3): 11532 Copy Item 7 in Form 4.2-1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 30 in Form 4.3-2 3 On-site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 11877 Copy Item 16 in Form 4.3-3 4 On-site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 9 in Form 4.3-4 5 On-site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 3 in Form 4.3-5 6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0 Copy Item 6 in Form 4.3-5 7 LID BMP performance criteria are achieved if answer to any of the following is “Yes”:
 Full retention of LID DCV with site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP: Yes No If yes, sum of Items 2, 3, and 4 is greater than Item 1  Combination of on-site retention BMPs for a portion of the LID DCV and volume-based biotreatment BMP that address all pollutants of concern for the remaining LID DCV: Yes No If yes, a) sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is greater than Item 1, and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized; or b) Item 6 is greater than Form

4.3--5 Item 6 and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized
 On-site retention and infiltration is determined to be infeasible and biotreatment BMP provide biotreatment for all pollutants of concern for full LID DCV: Yes No
If yes, Form 4.3-1 Items 7 and 8 were both checked yes
8 If the LID DCV is not achieved by any of these means, then the project may be allowed to develop an alternative compliance plan. Check box that describes the scenario which caused the need for alternative compliance:
 Combination of HSC, retention and infiltration, harvest and use, and biotreatment BMPs provide less than full LID DCV capture:

Checked yes for Form 4.3-5 Item 7, Item 6 is zero, and sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is less than Item 1. If so, apply water quality credits and calculate volume for alternative compliance, Valt = (Item 1 – Item 2 – Item 3 – Item 4 – Item 5) * (100 - Form 2.4-1 Item 2)%  An approved Watershed Action Plan (WAP) demonstrates that water quality and hydrologic impacts of urbanization are more effective when managed in at an off-site facility:

Attach appropriate WAP section, including technical documentation, showing effectiveness comparisons for the project site and regional watershed
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-24

4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP
Use Form 4.3-10 to compute the remaining runoff volume retention, after LID BMP are implemented, needed to address HCOC, and the increase in time of concentration and decrease in peak runoff necessary to meet targets for protection of waterbodies with a potential HCOC. Describe hydromodification control BMP that address HCOC, which may include off-site BMP and/or in-stream controls. Section 5.6 of the TGD for WQMP provides additional details on selection and evaluation of hydromodification control BMP.

Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMPs (All DAs)
1 Volume reduction needed for HCOC
performance criteria (ft3): 11456
(Form 4.2-2 Item 4 * 0.95) – Form 4.2-2 Item 1
2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, and harvest and use LID BMP (ft3):11877 Sum of Form 4.3-9 Items 2, 3, and 4 Evaluate option to increase implementation of on-site retention in Forms 4.3-2, 4.3-3, and 4.3-4 in excess of LID DCV toward achieving HCOC volume reduction 3 Remaining volume for HCOC
volume capture (ft3): 0
Item 1 – Item 2
4 Volume capture provided by incorporating additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs (ft3): N/A Existing downstream BMP may be used to demonstrate additional volume capture (if so, attach to this WQMP a hydrologic analysis showing how the additional volume would be retained during a 2-yr storm event for the regional watershed)
5 If Item 4 is less than Item 3, incorporate in-stream controls on downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification Attach in-stream control BMP selection and evaluation to this WQMP 6 Is Form 4.2-2 Item 11 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No Project retains full 2-year storm on-site, therefore OK.

If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below:
 Demonstrate increase in time of concentration achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMP, and additional on-site or off-site retention BMP
BMP upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate increased time of concentration through hydrograph attenuation (if so, show that the hydraulic residence time provided in BMP for a 2-year storm event is equal or greater than the addition time of concentration requirement in Form 4.2-4 Item 15)  Increase time of concentration by preserving pre-developed flow path and/or increase travel time by reducing slope and increasing cross-sectional area and roughness for proposed on-site conveyance facilities  Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California 7 Form 4.2-2 Item 12 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No Project retains full 2-year storm on-site, therefore OK.

If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below:
 Demonstrate reduction in peak runoff achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMPs, and additional on-site or offsite retention BMPs BMPs upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate additional peak runoff reduction through hydrograph attenuation (if so, attach to this WQMP, a hydrograph analysis showing how the peak runoff would be reduced during a 2-yr storm event)
 Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4-25

4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable)
Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable) for projects not fully able to infiltrate, harvest and use, or biotreat the DCV via on-site LID practices. A project proponent must develop an alternative compliance plan to address the remainder of the LID DCV. Depending on project type some projects may qualify for water quality credits that can be applied to reduce the DCV that must be treated prior to development of an alternative compliance plan (see Form 2.4-1, Water Quality Credits). Form 4.3-9 Item 8 includes instructions on how to apply water quality credits when computing the DCV that must be met through alternative compliance. Alternative compliance plans may include one or more of the following elements:
 On-site structural treatment control BMP - All treatment control BMP should be located as close to possible to the pollutant sources and should not be located within receiving waters;
 Off-site structural treatment control BMP - Pollutant removal should occur prior to discharge of runoff to receiving waters;
 Urban runoff fund or In-lieu program, if available
Depending upon the proposed alternative compliance plan, approval by the executive officer may or may not be required (see Section 6 of the TGD for WQMP).

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-1
Section 5 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility
for Post Construction BMP
All BMP included as part of the project WQMP are required to be maintained through regular scheduled inspection and maintenance (refer to Section 8, Post Construction BMP Requirements, in the TGD for WQMP). Fully complete Form 5-1 summarizing all BMP included in the WQMP. Attach additional forms as needed. The WQMP shall also include a detailed Operation and Maintenance Plan for all BMP and may require a Maintenance Agreement (consult the jurisdiction’s LIP). If a Maintenance Agreement is required, it must also be attached to the WQMP.

Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance
(use additional forms as necessary)
BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance
Activities Required
Minimum Frequency
of Activities
Infiltration
facility Owner
Inspect for debris/sediment accumulation if standing
water occurs 48 hours after rain event. If standing water is observed, remove sediment (if any) and evaluate
potential sources of sediment and vegetative or other
debris.

After storm events
Infiltration
facility Owner
Remove sediment accumulations of 2 inches or more.

Sediments should be tested for toxic substance
accumulation in compliance with current disposal
requirements if visual or olfactory indications of pollution are noticed. If toxic substances are encountered at
concentrations exceeding thresholds of Title 22, Section 66261, of the California Code of Regulations, the sediment must be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill and the source of the contaminated sediments should be
investigated and mitigated to the extent possible.

Inspect monthly and
after storm events.

Remove as required.

N1-Eductaion
for Property
Owners,
Tenants, and
Occupants
Owner As part of employee orientation, all employees will be educated on the information shown.

With 6 months of
hiring and annually
thereafter
N3,S5-
Landscape
Maintenance
Owner/Manager Remove trash and debris and rake soils to maintain 1 to 2 inch depression next to hardscape Monthly
N3-
Landscape
Maintenance
Owner/Manager
Limit pesticide and herbicide use. If pesticides/herbicides are used they shall be used in conformance with
manufacturers recommendations regarding application
rate and applied by a certified applicator.

N/A
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-2
N3-
Landscape
Maintenance
Owner/Manager Eradicate weeds and prune back excess plant growth.

Remove invasive vegetation. Monthly
N4, BMP
Maintenance
(infiltration)
Owner
Implementation of BMP maintenance is the responsibility of the owner, beginning at occupancy, and generally
including inspection of basins and inlets before the wet season and after each storm, with cleanup on an asneeded basis:
1) Inspect all inlets and remove any accumulated debris and sediment at least once per quarter, and prior to
the start of the wet season each year (by October 1).
2) Do not wash debris, sediment or trash into the storm drains.
3) Do not dump anything into the storm drains.
4) Limit overspray of landscaping from draining into the storm drain inlets. Excess periodic drainage will result in a shorter useful life for the infiltration system.
5) Eliminate standing water to prevent vector breeding
Monthly
N11-
Litter/Debris
Control
Owner/Manager Inspect site on a daily basis. Remove trash and debris and dispose into proper trash receptacles Daily
N12,
Employee
Training
Owner
The Employee Training is the responsibility of the Owner, and includes initial and annual training regarding the
provisions of this WQMP.

Annually
N14, Catch
Basin
Inspection
Owner
Implementation of Catch Basin Inspection is the
responsibility of the Owner, beginning at occupancy and generally including inspection of inlets before the wet season and after each storm, with cleanup on an asneeded basis. Note that filter inserts for trash, sediment and fossil fuels are required and will be installed in each Catch Basin.

Monthly
N15- Vacuum
Sweeping of
Parking Lots
Owner/Manager
Vacuum sweep parking lots at least twice annually to
reduce the amount of sediment, garden waste, and trash
entering into BMPs.

In the month of
September and in the
month of January at
minimum.

S1, Provide
Storm Drain
System
Stenciling
and Signage
Owner
Implementation of Storm Drain System Stenciling and
Signage is the responsibility of the Owner, beginning at occupancy, and generally including refreshing of signs on an as-needed basis.

Quarterly
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5-3
S4: Use
efficient
irrigation
systems &
landscape
design, water
conservation,
smart
controllers,
and source
control
(Statewide
Model
Landscape
Ordinance;
CASQA new
Development
BMP
Handbook
SD-12)
Owner
Implementation frequency: Maintenance shall be
provided weekly to check and repair the irrigation system proper functioning and verify there are no leaks or run-off from landscaped areas. Adjust irrigation heads and
system controller as necessary to prevent overwatering of vegetation, overspray of run-off from landscape areas and to ensure the health and aesthetic quality of the
landscape.

Weekly
6-1
Section 6 WQMP Attachments

6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan
Include a site plan and drainage plan sheet set containing the following minimum information:

6.2 Electronic Data Submittal
Minimum requirements include submittal of PDF exhibits in addition to hard copies. Format must not require specialized software to open. If the local jurisdiction requires specialized electronic document formats (as described in their local Local Implementation Plan), this section will describe the contents (e.g., layering, nomenclature, geo-referencing, etc.) of these documents so that they may be interpreted efficiently and accurately.

6.3 Post Construction
Attach all O&M Plans and Maintenance Agreements for BMP to the WQMP.

6.4 Other Supporting Documentation  BMP Educational Materials  Activity Restriction – C, C&R’s & Lease Agreements
 Project location
 Site boundary
 Land uses and land covers, as applicable
 Suitability/feasibility constraints
 Structural Source Control BMP locations
 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP locations
 LID BMP details
 Drainage delineations and flow information
 Drainage connections
Appendix A: Operation and Maintenance Plan
Appendix B: BMP Educational Materials
To report illegal dumping or for more information
on stormwater pollution prevention, call:
1 (800) CLEANUP
PAINTING Paints, solvents, adhesives and other toxic chemicals used in painting often make their way into the San Bernardino County storm drain system and do not get treated before reaching the Santa Ana River. This pollutes our drinking water and contaminates waterways, making them unsafe for people and wildlife. Follow these simple tips to prevent pollution and protect our health.

Recycling Paint
Recycle leftover paint at a household hazardous
waste collection facility, save it for touch ups or
give it to someone who can use it, like a theatre
group, school, city or community organization.

Painting Cleanup
Never clean brushes or rinse paint containers in
the street, gutter or near a storm drain. Clean waterbased paints in the sink. Clean oil-based paints with thinner, which can be reused by putting it in a jar
to settle out the paint particles and then pouring
off the clear liquid for future use. Wrap dried paint
residue in newspaper and dispose of it in the trash.

Exterior Paint
Removal
When stripping or cleaning
building exteriors with highpressure water, block nearby storm drains and divert
washwater onto a designated
dirt area. Ask your local
wastewater treatment
authority if you can collect
building cleaning water and
discharge it to the sewer.

Paint Removal
Sweep up paint stripping residue, chips and dust
instead of hosing into the street and dispose of them
safely at a household hazardous waste collection
facility. Call (800) CLEANUP for
the facility in your area.
www.1800cleanup.org
Water-Based Paints
Use water-based paints whenever possible. They are
less toxic than oil-based paints and easier to clean
up. Look for products labeled “latex” or “cleans with
water.”
To report illegal dumping or for more information
on stormwater pollution prevention, call:
1 (800) CLEANUP

HOME REPAIR
& REMODELING
Recycle Household Hazardous Waste
Household cleaners, paint and other home improvement
products like wallpaper and tile adhesives are too toxic to trash. Recycle them instead, at a convenient
household hazardous waste collection facility. Call
(800) CLEANUP for the facility in your area.
www.1800cleanup.org
Paints, solvents, adhesives and other toxic substances used in home repair and remodeling often make their way into the San Bernardino County storm drain system and do not get treated before reaching the Santa Ana River. This pollutes our drinking water and contaminates waterways, making them unsafe for people and wildlife. Follow these simple tips to prevent pollution and protect your health.

Paint Removal
Paint stripping residue, chips and dust from marine
paints and paints containing lead or tributyl tin
are hazardous wastes. Sweep them up instead of
hosing into the street and dispose of them safely
at a household hazardous waste
collection facility.

Painting Cleanup
Avoid cleaning brushes or rinsing paint containers
in the street, gutter or near a storm drain. Clean
water-based paints in the sink. Clean oil-based
paints with thinner, which you can filter and reuse.

Recycle leftover paint at a household hazardous
waste collection facility, save it for touch ups or
give it to someone who can use it, like a theatre
group, school, city or community organization.

Construction Projects
Keep construction debris away from the street,
gutter and storm drains. Schedule grading and
excavation projects for dry weather. Cover
excavated material and stockpiles of soil, sand or
gravel, protected from rain, wind and runoff. Prevent
erosion by planting fast-growing annual and
perennial grass, which can shield and bind soil.

Landscaping & Gardening
Avoid applying fertilizers or pesticide near curbs
and driveways, and store covered, protected from
rain, wind and runoff. Try using organic or nontoxic alternatives. Reduce runoff and lower your water bill by using drip irrigation, soaker hoses
or micro-spray systems. Recycle leaves instead
of blowing, sweeping or raking them into the
street, gutter or storm drain.

Concrete and Masonry
Store bags of cement and plaster away from gutters
and storm drains, and cover them to protect against
rain, wind and runoff. Sweep or scoop up cement
washout or concrete dust instead of hosing into
driveways, streets, gutters or storm drains.

To report illegal dumping or for more information
on stormwater pollution prevention, call:
1 (800) CLEANUP

HOME & GARDEN
Yard waste and household toxics like paints and pesticides often make their way into the San Bernardino County storm drain system and do not get treated before reaching the Santa Ana River.

This pollutes our drinking water and contaminates waterways, making them unsafe for people and wildlife. Follow these simple tips to prevent pollution and protect your health.FFFFFFF www.1800cleanup.org
Disposing of Yard Waste
Recycle leaves, grass clippings and other yard waste,
instead of blowing, sweeping or hosing into the
street. Try grasscycling, leaving grass clippings on
your lawn instead of using a grass catcher. The
clippings act as a natural fertilizer, and because
grass is mostly water, it also irrigates your lawn,
conserving water.

Planting in the Yard
Produce less yard waste and save
water by planting low maintenance,
drought-tolerant trees and shrubs.

Using drip irrigation, soaker hoses
or micro-spray systems for flower
beds and vegetation can also help
reduce your water bill and prevent
runoff.

Use Fertilizers & Pesticides Safely
Fertilizers and pesticides are often carried into
the storm drain system by sprinkler runoff. Try
using organic or non-toxic alternatives. If you
use chemical fertilizers or pesticides, avoid
applying near curbs and driveways and never
apply before a rain.

Use Water Wisely
Cut your water costs and prevent runoff by controlling
the amount of water and direction of sprinklers. The
average lawn needs about an inch of water a week,
including rainfall, or 10 to 20 minutes of watering.

A half-inch per week is enough for fall and spring.

Sprinklers should be on long enough to allow water
to soak into the ground but not so long as to cause
runoff.

Recycle Household Hazardous Waste
Household products like paint, pesticides, solvents
and cleaners are too dangerous to dump and too
toxic to trash. Take them to be recycled at a
convenient household hazardous waste
collection facility. Call (800) CLEANUP
for the facility in your area.

To report illegal dumping or
for more information on stormwater
pollution prevention, call:
1 (800) CLEANUP
AUTO MAINTENANCE Oil, grease, anti-freeze and other toxic automotive fluids often make their way into the San Bernardino County storm drain system, and do not get treated before reaching the Santa Ana River. This pollutes our drinking water and contaminates waterways, making them unsafe for people and wildlife. Follow these best management practices to prevent pollution and protect public health.

Metal Grinding and
Polishing
Keep a bin under your lathe or grinder
to capture metal filings. Send
uncontaminated filings to a scrap metal
recycler for reclamation. Store metal
filings in a covered container or indoors.

Preventing Leaks and
Spills
Place drip pans underneath to capture
fluids. Use absorbent cleaning agents
instead of water to clean work areas.

Loma Linda City CouncilJanuary 13, 2026

Loma Linda City Council
January 13, 2026