Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, December 19, 2023 (part 5 of 8)

14759-04 AQ Assessment

PROJECT AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS

METHODOLOGY
In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operationalsource criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (1). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine operational air quality emissions.

AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional operational significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (2). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Operations
NOX 55 lbs/day
VOC 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions.

The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by buildout associated with the net increase in residential units. Trip characteristics available from the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis were utilized in this analysis (3).

The estimated operation-source emissions associated with the net increase of 904 dwelling units, and reduction in 100,000 square feet of retail are summarized on Table 2. As shown on Table 2, operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required. 675
Sage McCleve
July 17, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

14759-04 AQ Assessment
TABLE 2: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (904 DU RESIDENTIAL INCREASE + NET REDUCTION IN RETAIL (-100KSF)
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer

51.21 33.94 212.07 0.53 41.89 11.92

21.23 15.06 158.10 0.43 41.73 10.77

29.98 18.88 53.97 0.11 0.17 1.15
55 55 550 150 150 55

NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter

45.67 34.54 138.02 0.51 41.87 11.90

19.51 16.09 129.77 0.40 41.72 10.77

26.16 18.45 8.24 0.11 0.15 1.14
55 55 550 150 150 55
904 DU Residential
Net Reduction in Retail (-100,000 SF)
Net Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded?
904 DU Residential
Net Reduction in Retail (-100,000 SF)
Net Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Threshold
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
676
14759-04 AQ Assessment

REFERENCES

1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.

2. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

3. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Parkside Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. 2023. 677
14759-04 AQ Assessment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
678
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 1 / 31
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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
679
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 2 / 31

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

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 680
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 3 / 31

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

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

5.14.1. Unmitigated
681
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 4 / 31

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
682
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 5 / 31

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
683
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 6 / 31

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Operational Year 2032
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 33.99631704846932, -117.59557801065526
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5260
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14

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
Condo/Townhouse 715 Dwelling Unit 36.7 757,900 0.00 — 2,367 — 684
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 7 / 31
Single Family
Housing
189 Dwelling Unit 13.2 368,550 2,213,730 — 626 —

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

2. Emissions Summary

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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 28.3 51.2 33.9 212 0.53 1.75 40.1 41.9 1.73 10.2 11.9 456 69,977 70,433 48.9 2.23 83.2 72,403 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.5 45.7 34.5 138 0.51 1.72 40.1 41.9 1.71 10.2 11.9 456 67,208 67,664 49.0 2.28 9.18 69,579 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.3 46.2 21.1 161 0.40 0.70 36.8 37.5 0.69 9.34 10.0 456 48,360 48,815 48.6 2.10 37.3 50,692 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.07 8.44 3.85 29.4 0.07 0.13 6.71 6.84 0.13 1.70 1.83 75.4 8,006 8,082 8.04 0.35 6.17 8,393

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) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 685
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 8 / 31
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 21.4 19.7 15.1 153 0.42 0.24 40.1 40.4 0.22 10.2 10.4 — 42,643 42,643 1.84 1.95 76.0 43,345 Area 6.26 31.3 14.0 57.3 0.09 1.11 — 1.11 1.11 — 1.11 0.00 17,268 17,268 0.33 0.03 — 17,286 Energy 0.57 0.29 4.89 2.08 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 9,717 9,717 0.99 0.07 — 9,762 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 72.2 348 420 7.45 0.18 — 660 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 383 0.00 383 38.3 0.00 — 1,342 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.21 7.21
Total 28.3 51.2 33.9 212 0.53 1.75 40.1 41.9 1.73 10.2 11.9 456 69,977 70,433 48.9 2.23 83.2 72,403 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 20.3 18.6 16.2 130 0.39 0.24 40.1 40.4 0.22 10.2 10.4 — 40,012 40,012 1.92 2.01 1.97 40,659 Area 1.58 26.8 13.5 5.74 0.09 1.09 — 1.09 1.09 — 1.09 0.00 17,131 17,131 0.32 0.03 — 17,149 Energy 0.57 0.29 4.89 2.08 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 9,717 9,717 0.99 0.07 — 9,762 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 72.2 348 420 7.45 0.18 — 660 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 383 0.00 383 38.3 0.00 — 1,342 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.21 7.21
Total 22.5 45.7 34.5 138 0.51 1.72 40.1 41.9 1.71 10.2 11.9 456 67,208 67,664 49.0 2.28 9.18 69,579 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 18.4 16.8 15.0 123 0.36 0.22 36.8 37.0 0.20 9.34 9.54 — 37,027 37,027 1.76 1.85 30.0 37,652 Area 3.31 29.1 1.25 35.7 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 0.00 1,267 1,267 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,269 Energy 0.57 0.29 4.89 2.08 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 9,717 9,717 0.99 0.07 — 9,762 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 72.2 348 420 7.45 0.18 — 660 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 383 0.00 383 38.3 0.00 — 1,342 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.21 7.21
Total 22.3 46.2 21.1 161 0.40 0.70 36.8 37.5 0.69 9.34 10.0 456 48,360 48,815 48.6 2.10 37.3 50,692 686
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 9 / 31
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.37 3.07 2.73 22.5 0.07 0.04 6.71 6.75 0.04 1.70 1.74 — 6,130 6,130 0.29 0.31 4.97 6,234 Area 0.60 5.32 0.23 6.51 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 210 210 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 210 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,609 1,609 0.16 0.01 — 1,616 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 57.6 69.6 1.23 0.03 — 109 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.5 0.00 63.5 6.35 0.00 — 222 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.19 1.19
Total 4.07 8.44 3.85 29.4 0.07 0.13 6.71 6.84 0.13 1.70 1.83 75.4 8,006 8,082 8.04 0.35 6.17 8,393

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

16.0 14.7 11.3 114 0.31 0.18 30.0 30.2 0.17 7.63 7.79 — 31,916 31,916 1.38 1.46 56.8 32,442 Single
Family
Housing

5.39 4.95 3.79 38.4 0.10 0.06 10.1 10.2 0.06 2.56 2.62 — 10,727 10,727 0.46 0.49 19.1 10,904 Total 21.4 19.7 15.1 153 0.42 0.24 40.1 40.4 0.22 10.2 10.4 — 42,643 42,643 1.84 1.95 76.0 43,345 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
687
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 10 / 31
Condo/T 15.2 13.9 12.1 97.4 0.29 0.18 30.0 30.2 0.17 7.63 7.80 — 29,946 29,946 1.44 1.50 1.47 30,431 ownhous
Single
Family
Housing

5.12 4.67 4.06 32.8 0.10 0.06 10.1 10.2 0.06 2.56 2.62 — 10,065 10,065 0.48 0.50 0.50 10,228 Total 20.3 18.6 16.2 130 0.39 0.24 40.1 40.4 0.22 10.2 10.4 — 40,012 40,012 1.92 2.01 1.97 40,659 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e

2.46 2.24 2.00 16.5 0.05 0.03 4.91 4.94 0.03 1.25 1.27 — 4,484 4,484 0.21 0.22 3.64 4,560 Single
Family
Housing

0.90 0.82 0.73 6.04 0.02 0.01 1.80 1.81 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 1,646 1,646 0.08 0.08 1.34 1,674 Total 3.37 3.07 2.73 22.5 0.07 0.04 6.71 6.75 0.04 1.70 1.74 — 6,130 6,130 0.29 0.31 4.97 6,234

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,477 2,477 0.31 0.04 — 2,496
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,028 1,028 0.13 0.02 — 1,036
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,505 3,505 0.44 0.05 — 3,532 688
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 11 / 31
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,477 2,477 0.31 0.04 — 2,496
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,028 1,028 0.13 0.02 — 1,036
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,505 3,505 0.44 0.05 — 3,532 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 410 410 0.05 0.01 — 413
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 170 170 0.02 < 0.005 — 171
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 580 580 0.07 0.01 — 585

0.40 0.20 3.40 1.45 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,318 4,318 0.38 0.01 — 4,330 Single
Family
Housing

0.17 0.09 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,895 1,895 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,901 Total 0.57 0.29 4.89 2.08 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 6,213 6,213 0.55 0.01 — 6,230 689
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 12 / 31
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.40 0.20 3.40 1.45 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,318 4,318 0.38 0.01 — 4,330 Single
Family
Housing

0.17 0.09 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,895 1,895 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,901 Total 0.57 0.29 4.89 2.08 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 6,213 6,213 0.55 0.01 — 6,230 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.07 0.04 0.62 0.26 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 715 715 0.06 < 0.005 — 717 Single
Family
Housing

0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 314 314 0.03 < 0.005 — 315 Total 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,029 1,029 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,031

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.58 0.79 13.5 5.74 0.09 1.09 — 1.09 1.09 — 1.09 0.00 17,131 17,131 0.32 0.03 — 17,149 Consum
er
Products
— 24.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
690
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 13 / 31
Architect — 1.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

4.68 4.43 0.48 51.5 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 138 Total 6.26 31.3 14.0 57.3 0.09 1.11 — 1.11 1.11 — 1.11 0.00 17,268 17,268 0.33 0.03 — 17,286 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.58 0.79 13.5 5.74 0.09 1.09 — 1.09 1.09 — 1.09 0.00 17,131 17,131 0.32 0.03 — 17,149 Consum
er
Products
— 24.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.58 26.8 13.5 5.74 0.09 1.09 — 1.09 1.09 — 1.09 0.00 17,131 17,131 0.32 0.03 — 17,149 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 194 194 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 194 Consum
er
Products
— 4.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.58 0.55 0.06 6.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 Total 0.60 5.32 0.23 6.51 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 210 210 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 210

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
691
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 14 / 31

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.1 145 202 5.87 0.14 — 391
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 15.1 203 218 1.57 0.04 — 269
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 72.2 348 420 7.45 0.18 — 660 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.1 145 202 5.87 0.14 — 391
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 15.1 203 218 1.57 0.04 — 269
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 72.2 348 420 7.45 0.18 — 660 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.45 24.0 33.5 0.97 0.02 — 64.7
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.50 33.6 36.1 0.26 0.01 — 44.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 57.6 69.6 1.23 0.03 — 109 692
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 15 / 31

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 285 0.00 285 28.5 0.00 — 997
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 98.5 0.00 98.5 9.85 0.00 — 345
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 383 0.00 383 38.3 0.00 — 1,342 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 285 0.00 285 28.5 0.00 — 997
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 98.5 0.00 98.5 9.85 0.00 — 345
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 383 0.00 383 38.3 0.00 — 1,342 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 47.2 0.00 47.2 4.72 0.00 — 165
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 16.3 0.00 16.3 1.63 0.00 — 57.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 63.5 0.00 63.5 6.35 0.00 — 222693 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 16 / 31

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.85 4.85
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.36 2.36
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.21 7.21
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.85 4.85
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.36 2.36
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.21 7.21
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.80 0.80
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.39 0.39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.19 1.19694
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 17 / 31

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
695
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 18 / 31
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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
696
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 19 / 31
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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
697
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 20 / 31
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
698
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 21 / 31

5. Activity Data

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 Condo/Townhouse 4,819 5,359 4,133 1,751,329 38,112 42,382 32,684 13,850,532 Single Family
Housing
1,782 1,801 1,614 642,743 14,095 14,245 12,765 5,083,189

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 644
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 72
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 170
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 19 699
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 22 / 31

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)
2281061.25 760,354 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

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) Condo/Townhouse 3,466,724 261 0.0330 0.0040 13,472,242
Single Family Housing 1,438,219 261 0.0330 0.0040 5,913,756

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 29,802,040 0.00
Single Family Housing 7,877,742 43,450,688

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
700
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 23 / 31

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 529 —
Single Family Housing 183 —

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 Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
User Defined 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
User Defined 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing 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 701 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 24 / 31

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

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
702
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 25 / 31

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 19.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.78 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 (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 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
703
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 26 / 31
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 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
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.

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 77.1
704
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 27 / 31
AQ-PM 93.4
AQ-DPM 57.1
Drinking Water 100.0
Lead Risk Housing 17.5
Pesticides 84.9
Toxic Releases 67.6
Traffic 18.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 80.3
Groundwater 98.1
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 86.6
Impaired Water Bodies 87.0
Solid Waste 98.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 16.5
Cardio-vascular 29.1
Low Birth Weights 49.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 52.9
Housing 59.3
Linguistic 68.9
Poverty 35.4
Unemployment 36.4

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
705
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 28 / 31
Economic—
Above Poverty 73.60451687
Employed 6.274862056
Median HI 76.55588349
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 64.85307327
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 66.93186193
Transportation—
Auto Access 63.41588605
Active commuting 24.5989991
Social—
2-parent households 66.95752598
Voting 70.69164635
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 97.0101373
Park access 52.77813422
Retail density 10.02181445
Supermarket access 6.557166688
Tree canopy 8.238162453
Housing—
Homeownership 60.78532016
Housing habitability 61.41408957
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 71.53856025 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 18.38829719
Uncrowded housing 64.30129603
Health Outcomes—
706
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 29 / 31
Insured adults 73.78416528
Arthritis 95.7
Asthma ER Admissions 84.6
High Blood Pressure 97.7
Cancer (excluding skin) 89.7
Asthma 34.7
Coronary Heart Disease 98.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 94.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 96.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.7
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 69.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 68.4
Mental Health Not Good 54.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 68.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 86.2
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 28.2
Current Smoker 59.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 76.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 9.0
707
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 30 / 31
Elderly 91.7
English Speaking 35.1
Foreign-born 48.1
Outdoor Workers 88.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 78.1
Traffic Density 21.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 45.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.7

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) 55.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
708
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Residential) Detailed Report, 7/12/2023 31 / 31

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Site information taken from site plan.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic Analysis Operations: Hearths SCAQMD Rule 445 no wood burning devices. Wood burning devices added to gas devices.

Operations: Refrigerants Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater.
709
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 1 / 27
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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
710
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 2 / 27

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

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 711
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 3 / 27

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

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

5.14.1. Unmitigated
712
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 4 / 27

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
713
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 5 / 27

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
714
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 6 / 27

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Operational Year 2032
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 33.996366, -117.595016
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5260
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14

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
Strip Mall 100 1000sqft 2.30 100,000 0.00 — — —
715
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 7 / 27

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

2. Emissions Summary

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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 20.7 21.2 15.1 158 0.43 0.26 41.5 41.7 0.24 10.5 10.8 70.8 44,816 44,887 9.02 2.00 79.1 45,786 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 18.9 19.5 16.1 130 0.40 0.25 41.5 41.7 0.24 10.5 10.8 70.8 42,078 42,149 9.09 2.06 2.66 42,991 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16.5 17.3 13.9 118 0.35 0.22 35.4 35.6 0.21 8.98 9.19 70.8 36,391 36,462 8.81 1.77 29.5 37,240 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.01 3.16 2.55 21.4 0.06 0.04 6.45 6.49 0.04 1.64 1.68 11.7 6,025 6,037 1.46 0.29 4.89 6,165

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) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
716
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 8 / 27
Mobile 19.9 18.1 14.9 154 0.43 0.24 41.5 41.7 0.23 10.5 10.8 — 43,878 43,878 1.80 1.95 78.4 44,583 Area 0.77 3.11 0.04 4.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 884 884 0.10 0.01 — 890 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Total 20.7 21.2 15.1 158 0.43 0.26 41.5 41.7 0.24 10.5 10.8 70.8 44,816 44,887 9.02 2.00 79.1 45,786 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 18.9 17.1 15.9 130 0.40 0.24 41.5 41.7 0.23 10.5 10.8 — 41,158 41,158 1.87 2.01 2.03 41,805 Area — 2.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 884 884 0.10 0.01 — 890 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Total 18.9 19.5 16.1 130 0.40 0.25 41.5 41.7 0.24 10.5 10.8 70.8 42,078 42,149 9.09 2.06 2.66 42,991 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 15.9 14.4 13.8 114 0.34 0.21 35.4 35.6 0.19 8.98 9.17 — 35,459 35,459 1.59 1.73 28.9 36,042 Area 0.53 2.88 0.03 2.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.2 12.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 884 884 0.10 0.01 — 890 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Total 16.5 17.3 13.9 118 0.35 0.22 35.4 35.6 0.21 8.98 9.19 70.8 36,391 36,462 8.81 1.77 29.5 37,240 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.91 2.63 2.51 20.9 0.06 0.04 6.45 6.49 0.04 1.64 1.67 — 5,871 5,871 0.26 0.29 4.78 5,967 Area 0.10 0.53 < 0.005 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.04717 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 9 / 27
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 146 146 0.02 < 0.005 — 147 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.35 5.96 8.31 0.24 0.01 — 16.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 0.00 9.37 0.94 0.00 — 32.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Total 3.01 3.16 2.55 21.4 0.06 0.04 6.45 6.49 0.04 1.64 1.68 11.7 6,025 6,037 1.46 0.29 4.89 6,165

4. Operations Emissions Details

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 19.9 18.1 14.9 154 0.43 0.24 41.5 41.7 0.23 10.5 10.8 — 43,878 43,878 1.80 1.95 78.4 44,583 Total 19.9 18.1 14.9 154 0.43 0.24 41.5 41.7 0.23 10.5 10.8 — 43,878 43,878 1.80 1.95 78.4 44,583 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 18.9 17.1 15.9 130 0.40 0.24 41.5 41.7 0.23 10.5 10.8 — 41,158 41,158 1.87 2.01 2.03 41,805 Total 18.9 17.1 15.9 130 0.40 0.24 41.5 41.7 0.23 10.5 10.8 — 41,158 41,158 1.87 2.01 2.03 41,805 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 2.91 2.63 2.51 20.9 0.06 0.04 6.45 6.49 0.04 1.64 1.67 — 5,871 5,871 0.26 0.29 4.78 5,967 Total 2.91 2.63 2.51 20.9 0.06 0.04 6.45 6.49 0.04 1.64 1.67 — 5,871 5,871 0.26 0.29 4.78 5,967

4.2. Energy
718
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 10 / 27

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
719
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 11 / 27
Strip Mall 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 2.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.77 0.71 0.04 4.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Total 0.77 3.11 0.04 4.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 2.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
720
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 12 / 27
Architect — 0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Total — 2.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.10 0.09 < 0.005 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.04 Total 0.10 0.53 < 0.005 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.04

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.2 36.0 50.2 1.46 0.04 — 97.2721 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 13 / 27
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 2.35 5.96 8.31 0.24 0.01 — 16.1 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.35 5.96 8.31 0.24 0.01 — 16.1

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 0.00 56.6 5.66 0.00 — 198 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 0.00 9.37 0.94 0.00 — 32.8 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.37 0.00 9.37 0.94 0.00 — 32.8

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 722
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 14 / 27
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62 0.62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
724
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 16 / 27
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
725
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 17 / 27
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
726
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 18 / 27
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

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 Strip Mall 6,443 4,204 2,043 2,005,519 58,488 38,163 18,546 18,205,503

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
727
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 19 / 27

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

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) Strip Mall 972,833 261 0.0330 0.0040 589,549

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 7,407,252 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year) 728
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 20 / 27
Strip Mall 105 —

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 Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

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
729
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 21 / 27
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

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 19.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm 730
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 22 / 27
Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.78 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.

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score 731 14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 23 / 27
Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
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.

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 77.1
AQ-PM 93.4
AQ-DPM 57.1
Drinking Water 100.0
Lead Risk Housing 17.5
Pesticides 84.9
Toxic Releases 67.6
732
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 24 / 27
Traffic 18.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 80.3
Groundwater 98.1
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 86.6
Impaired Water Bodies 87.0
Solid Waste 98.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 16.5
Cardio-vascular 29.1
Low Birth Weights 49.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 52.9
Housing 59.3
Linguistic 68.9
Poverty 35.4
Unemployment 36.4

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.60451687
Employed 6.274862056
Median HI 76.55588349
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 64.85307327
733
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 25 / 27
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 66.93186193
Transportation—
Auto Access 63.41588605
Active commuting 24.5989991
Social—
2-parent households 66.95752598
Voting 70.69164635
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 97.0101373
Park access 52.77813422
Retail density 10.02181445
Supermarket access 6.557166688
Tree canopy 8.238162453
Housing—
Homeownership 60.78532016
Housing habitability 61.41408957
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 71.53856025 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 18.38829719
Uncrowded housing 64.30129603
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 73.78416528
Arthritis 95.7
Asthma ER Admissions 84.6
High Blood Pressure 97.7
Cancer (excluding skin) 89.7
Asthma 34.7
734
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 26 / 27
Coronary Heart Disease 98.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 94.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 96.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.7
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 69.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 68.4
Mental Health Not Good 54.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 68.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 86.2
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 28.2
Current Smoker 59.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 76.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 9.0
Elderly 91.7
English Speaking 35.1
Foreign-born 48.1
Outdoor Workers 88.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 78.1
735
14759 - Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Operations Commercial)) Detailed Report, 7/17/2023 27 / 27
Traffic Density 21.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 45.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.7

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
Operations: Vehicle Data Rates taken from Parkside Specific Plan Traffic Analysis 736 Biological Technical Report for
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
(Planning Areas 1-23)
Prepared for:

Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Contact: Sage McCleve
Prepared by:
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Phone: (949) 489-2700
Contact: Wade Caffrey, Vice President
June 2023
737
This page intentionally left blank.
738
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
i June 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose and Approach ................................................................................................................1

1.2 Terms..........................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Location ..........................................................................................................................2

1.4 Regional Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Current Conditions and Past Site Use ...........................................................................................4

2.2 City of Ontario Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment, Final EIR, and Settlement Agreement................................................................................................................................................4

3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT.................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Impacts Terminology ...................................................................................................................7

4.0 VEGETATION.....................................................................................................................................8

4.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................8

4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities................................................................................................... 8

4.1.2 Special Status Plants ................................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Field Methodology .................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.1 General Field Survey .............................................................................................................. 10

4.2.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Single Day Focused Survey ................................. 15

4.2.3 Results of Previous Biological Assessments.......................................................................... 10

4.3 Results...................................................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover................................................................................... 11

4.3.2 Special Status Vegetation Communities............................................................................... 12

4.3.3 Plants ...................................................................................................................................... 13

4.3.4 Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur ................................................................... 13

4.4 Project Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 13

4.4.1 Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities .................................................................... 13

4.4.2 Potential Impacts to Special Status Plants............................................................................ 13

5.0 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................................14

5.1 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Field Methodology .................................................................................................................... 15

5.3 Results...................................................................................................................................... 16

5.3.1 Fish.......................................................................................................................................... 16

5.3.2 Amphibians............................................................................................................................. 16

5.3.3 Reptiles................................................................................................................................... 17

5.3.4 Birds........................................................................................................................................ 17

5.3.5 Mammals................................................................................................................................ 17

5.3.6 Insects..................................................................................................................................... 17

5.3.7 Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur............................................................... 17

5.3.8 Critical Habitat........................................................................................................................ 18

5.3.9 Wildlife Movement ................................................................................................................ 19

5.3.10 Avian Nesting and Bat Roosts................................................................................................ 20

5.4 Project Impacts to Wildlife......................................................................................................... 20

5.4.1 Potential Impacts to Special Status Wildlife ......................................................................... 20

5.4.2 Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 20

5.4.3 Potential Impacts to Wildlife Movement/Nesting/Bat Roosts ............................................ 21 739
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
ii June 2023

6.0 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS...............................................................................................................22

6.1 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Field Methodology .................................................................................................................... 22

6.3 Results...................................................................................................................................... 25

6.3.1 National Wetland Inventory .................................................................................................. 25

6.3.2 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 25

6.3.3 Jurisdictional Waters.............................................................................................................. 25

6.3.4 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters........................................................................... 26

7.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES....................................................................................................27

8.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................28

9.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................30

FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location Map
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4. Land Use Plan
Figure 5. Vegetation/Land Cover Map
Figure 6. Critical Habitat and CNDDB Occurrences Map
Figure 7. Burrowing Owl Study Area
Figure 8. National Wetland Inventory
Figure 9. Soil Map

APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Plant and Wildlife Species Observed within the Project Footprint Appendix C Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Determination Appendix D Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Habitat Assessment 740
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
iii June 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
741
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
1 June 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Lewis Operating Corp. and Richland Communities, VCS Environmental (VCS) prepared this Biological Technical Report, which incorporates the findings from a biological survey and four focused burrowing owl surveys conducted by VCS on April 14, May 10, June 6, and June 20, 2022.

VCS prepared this report to support California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment area, including Planning Areas (PA) 1-23 (generally located south of Ontario Ranch Road and West of Archibald Avenue) [herein after referred to as the “Project”] with the City of Ontario (City) as the lead agency.

1.1 Purpose and Approach
This report provides a summary of the conditions present during the April 2022 biological field survey, which included an assessment of the potential presence of sensitive biological resources, and an analysis of the potential impacts to those resources with implementation of the Project.

This report also reflects the results literature review and four focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys conducted in April, May, and June 2022. This report identifies the current biological resources present within the Project footprint including habitat communities, and the potential for occurrence of special status plant and wildlife species. The potential biological impacts in view of federal, state, and local laws and regulations are also identified in this report.

While general biological resources are discussed, the focus of this assessment is on those resources considered to be sensitive. The report also recommends, as appropriate, Best Management Practices (BMPs), avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts.

1.2 Terms
The following terms will be used throughout this document and are defined as follows:
• Project Footprint: the approximately 185.81-acre area assessed during the biological survey which encompasses Planning Areas (PAs) 1-23, the approximately 13.00-acre San Bernardino County Flood Control easement located on the eastern side of the property, and the approximately 12.91-acre right of way (ROW) improvement area. • ROW improvements: the approximately 12.91 acres of ROW expansions where improvements will occur around and within the Property. • Project site: the remaining approximately 172.91 net acres within the Project Footprint on which the project will occur (excludes ROW improvements). 742
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
2 June 2023
• Impact area: the entire approximately 185.81-acre area consisting of the Project Footprint that will be permanently impacted by the proposed Project. • Burrowing Owl Study Area: includes the Project Footprint and a 500-foot buffer around the Project Footprint.

1.3 Project Location
The approximately 185.81-acre Project is located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California; the site is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, Ontario Ranch Road to the north, and Archibald Avenue to the east. An active construction zone occurs directly to the south.

The Project is regionally accessible from State Route 60 (SR-60) and Archibald Avenue to the north, and from Interstate 15 (I-15) and Ontario Ranch Road to the east [Figures 1 and 2; Regional Location and Aerial Map, respectively]. The Project is located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Corona North quadrangle in Section 15, Township 4S, Range 4W (Figure 3).

The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) currently listed in the County of San Bernardino Parcel database as within the Project Footprint are:
021823132, 021806306, 021806306, 021822106, 021823108, 021823116, 021822111, 021823106, 021822110, 021823115, 021807304, 021823131, 021898268, 021807307, 021806305, 021807305, 021823124, 021823123, 021823109, 021823138, 021823134, 021823139, 021805306, 021823111, 021823136, 021805306, 021805305, 021805304, 021822108, 021898230, 021823110, 021898231, 021898232, 021898233, 021898234, 021898207, 021898235, 021898236, 021898237, 021898238, 021898239, 021898225, 021898226, 021898227, 021898228, 021898229, 021898221, 021898222, 021898223, 021898224, 021898210, 021898211, 021898212, 021898213, 021898214, 021898260, 021898261, 021898262, 021806304, 021806307, 021898263, 021898217, 021898218, 021898219, 021898220, 021898209, 021898209, 021898254, 021898255, 021898256, 021898215, 021898216, 021823113, 021807306, 021898264, 021898265, 021898266, 021898267, 021898257, 021898258, 021898259, 021898250, 021898251, 021898252, 021898253, 021898240, 021898241, 021898242, 021822105, 021807306, 021898243, 021898244, 021898245, 021898246, 021898247, 021898248, 021898249, 021898208, 021898205, 021805303, 021898205, 021822107, and 021818117.

1.4 Regional Environmental Setting
The Project is located between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Santa Ana Mountains to the south. This area of San Bernardino County is characterized by intense agricultural uses, including numerous dairy farming operations. The general area is converting into residential 743
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
3 June 2023
and related developments; thus, it exhibits a mosaic of developed and partially developed parcels, demolished and partially demolished dairies and farms, cleared lands, and active agricultural operations. The site is located five miles northwest of the Hidden Valley Wildlife Area and Prado Regional Park is located five miles southwest of the Project. 744
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
4 June 2023

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project involves an Amendment to the Parkside Project Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Amendment (2022) modifies the permitted units allowed in the unbuilt Planning Areas of the Parkside Specific Plan boundary. Consistent with the proposed The Ontario Plan 2050 Update, density in these Planning Areas can range from 11.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, in compliance with the TOP update The Ontario Plan 2050 Update, PA-19, has reduced in size, thus granting more area for residential development. The Project, including PAs 1-23 and associated right-of-way (ROW) improvements, totals approximately 185.81 acres (see Figure 4; Land Use Plan). The approximately 1-acre area of ROW improvements on the existing bridge overlying Cucamonga Creek will not result in impacts to the Creek, channel, or jurisdictional areas.

It is assumed for purposes of this biological study that the entirety of the 2022 Amendment 185.81-acre area surveyed during the biological assessment (including PA 1-23) subject to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment will be disturbed with future implementation of uses allowed by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

2.1 Current Conditions and Past Site Use
The Project is surrounded by agricultural lands such as dairies and row crops to the north and west. The area to the south is an active residential development; portions of which are within the larger Parkside Specific Plan. The Project Footprint supports four vegetation communities/land cover types. These vegetation communities/land cover types include Disturbed/Developed, Agricultural Row Crops, Herbaceous Non-native Forbs and Grasses, Tamarix spp. Stands and Nicotiana Glauca Stands. Site photographs are attached as Appendix A.

The Project Footprint is generally flat with elevations ranging from approximately 675 to 710 feet (205 to 216 meters) above mean sea level (MSL) (Google Earth 2022).

No special status species plant or animal species were observed onsite. The site does not contain aquatic features containing jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the State.

2.2 City of Ontario Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment, Final EIR, and Settlement Agreement
As further discussed in Section 5.4.1, Environmental Setting, of The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2008101140) (TOP Final EIR), in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq.), the City of Ontario established a development impact fee for development in the New Model Community (NMC). The primary purpose of the fee is to acquire and restore mitigation lands to offset impacts to species now living in the NMC and impacts to existing open space. Fees collected 745
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
5 June 2023
will be used to advance the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the NMC adopted in 1998 and any subsequent general plan amendment. Residential, commercial, and industrial development is required to pay $4,320 per acre for the acquisition of open space.

The proposed 2021 Amendment is also subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the Settlement and General Release Agreement, November 28, 2001 (the Agreement). The purpose of the Agreement is to settle and release fully and completely all claims of Endangered Habitats League and Sierra Club (Petitioners) in a lawsuit against the City of Ontario (the Respondent) commenced in February 1998. The Agreement addressed and provided mitigation for certain potential future environmental effects that could result from development, and covered potential environmental impacts to the Burrowing Owl, the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and actual and potential habitat and agricultural lands.

The Agreement also covered other sensitive species, both listed and non-listed, that inhabit or may inhabit similar habitat. Mitigation measures included in the Agreement which relate to biological resources include such things as the City’s establishment of a mitigation fee based on developable acres, the City’s establishment of long-term habitat area(s), management of said habitat by a land trust (or other conservation entity), and the requirement for biological studies in conjunction with CEQA and development applications. The GPA for the NMC Final EIR is presumed to be legally adequate based on the Settlement Agreement and inclusion of the mitigation measures established therein.
746
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
6 June 2023

3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following is a list of the relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations that apply to protecting plant communities, plants, wildlife, and water quality resources.

Agency/
Organization
Laws/Regulations Notes
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Jurisdictional Waters of the State or Waters of the U.S. are considered absent within the Project Footprint;
therefore, a Section 401 permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would not be
required.

CWA Section 404 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. are considered absent within the Project Footprint; therefore, no impacts will occur, and a Section 404 permit would not be required
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE).

CWA Section 408 No facilities subject to Section 408 occur within the Project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Compliance with the MBTA will be achieved with preconstruction surveys for nesting birds within three days prior to initiation of work.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) No federally listed species were observed on the Project Footprint during the 2022 surveys and are not
considered to have moderate or high potential to occur
within the Project Footprint.

State Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section
1600
Jurisdictional Waters of the State are considered
absent within the Project Footprint; therefore, a
Streambed Alteration Agreement through California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would not be
required.

FGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 These FGC sections offer protection of nesting birds, birds-of-prey, and migratory birds. Compliance will be
maintained with a pre-construction survey for nesting
birds (including birds-of-prey and migratory birds)
within three days prior to initiation of work.

FGC Section 4150 Prohibits incidental or deliberate “take” of non-game mammals, including bats. The potential for bat roosting is low within the Project Footprint; incidental take of bats is not anticipated with implementation of Project
activities.

California Endangered Species Act
(CESA)
No state listed species were observed within the
Project Footprint during the 2022 survey and are not
considered to have moderate or high potential to occur
within the Project Footprint.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act and Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDR)
Jurisdictional Waters of the State are considered
absent within the Project Footprint; therefore, a WDR
from the RWQCB would not be required.
747
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
7 June 2023
City of Ontario Landscape Division

6.05.020 Tree Preservation Policy
and Protection Measures
This code establishes policies and measures that will
further the preservation, protection, and maintenance
of established and healthy heritage trees, landmark, or significant outstanding features, and/or native trees
within the City. Heritage, native and/or landmark
significant trees were not observed within the Project
Footprint, therefore, no preservation or protection
measures for trees will be required.

3.1 Impacts Terminology
Potential impacts to biological resources that could result from implementation of the proposed Project are discussed in each of the Vegetation, Wildlife, and Jurisdictional Waters sections presented in this report.

Biological resources may be either directly or indirectly impacted by a project. Furthermore, direct and indirect impacts may be either permanent or temporary in nature. These impact categories are defined below. These terms will be used throughout the document. • Direct Impact: Any loss, alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from project-related activities is a direct impact. Examples include vegetation clearing, encroaching into wetlands, diverting natural surface water flows, and the loss of individual species and/or their habitats. Direct impacts are long-term. • Indirect Impact: As a result of project-related activities, biological resources may also be affected in a manner that is not direct. Examples of indirect impacts include elevated noise, light, and dust levels, increased human activity, decreased water quality, erosion created by the removal of vegetation, and the introduction of invasive plants and unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and dogs). These indirect impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their extent.
• Permanent Impacts: All impacts that result in the long-term or irreversible removal of biological resources are considered permanent. Examples include constructing a building or permanent road on an area containing biological resources. • Temporary Impacts: Any impacts considered to have reversible effects on biological resources can be viewed as temporary. Examples include the generation of fugitive dust during construction, removing vegetation, and either allowing the natural vegetation to recolonize or actively revegetating the impact area.

Under each section, potential impacts are discussed.
748
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
8 June 2023

4.0 VEGETATION

4.1 Literature Review

4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities
Sensitive plant communities (sensitive habitats) as defined below, are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. Sensitive habitats are often threatened with local extirpation and are therefore considered as valuable biological resources. Plant communities are considered “sensitive” by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and CDFW if they meet any of the following criteria listed below.
• The habitat is recognized and considered sensitive by CDFW, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or special interest groups such as CNPS. • The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. • The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1612 of the FGC.
• The habitat is known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
• The habitat is considered regionally rare.
• The habitat has undergone a large-scale reduction due to increased encroachment and development.
• The habitat supports special status plant and/or wildlife species (defined below). • The habitat functions as an important corridor for wildlife movement.

The most current version of CDFW’s List of California Sensitive Natural Communities indicates which natural communities are sensitive given the current state of the California classification (CDFW 2022b).

4.1.2 Special Status Plants
Species of plants are afforded “special status” by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or nongovernmental organizations (e.g., USFWS, CDFW, CNPS, and United States Forest Service [USFS]) because of their recognized rarity, potential vulnerability to extinction, and local importance.

These species typically have a limited geographic range and/or limited habitat and are referred to 749
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
9 June 2023
collectively as “special status” species. Plant species are considered “special status” species if they meet any of the following criteria:
• Taxa with official status under ESA, CESA, and/or the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). • Taxa proposed for listing under ESA and/or CESA.
• Taxa identified as sensitive, unique or rare, by the USFWS, CDFW, USFS, and/or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
• Plants that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
− Species considered by CNPS and CDFW to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B and 2; CNPS 2022). A majority of the CRPR 3 and CRPR 4 plant species generally do not qualify for protection under CESA and NPPA.
− Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
− Some species included on the CNDDB Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2022c).
• Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances.

Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Available literature and databases were reviewed regarding sensitive habitats and special status plant species. Special status plant species that have the potential to occur within the immediate region of the Project were identified. Several agencies, including the USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS publish lists of particular taxa (species and subspecies) and the associated level of protection or concern associated with each. Reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on the Project Footprint and included the following sources listed below:
• The CNDDB, a CDFW species account database that inventories status and locations of rare plants and wildlife in California, was used to identify any sensitive plant communities and special status plants that may exist within the following USGS Quadrangles: Ontario, Guasti, Fontana, Prado Dam, Corona North, and Riverside West (CDFW 2022a). 750
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
10 June 2023
• Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022). A search for the following USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Quadrangles provided information regarding the distribution and habitats of special status vascular plants in the vicinity of the Project: Ontario, Guasti, Fontana, Prado Dam, Corona North, and Riverside West. • A map of USFWS critical habitat to determine species with critical habitat mapped in the general vicinity of the Project (USFWS 2022a).
• Pertinent maps, scientific literature, websites, and regional flora and fauna field guides.

As noted previously, species occurrence and distribution information are often based on documented occurrences where opportunistic surveys have taken place; therefore, a lack of records does not necessarily indicate that a given species is absent from the Project Footprint.

4.1.3 Previous Biological Assessments
Previous biological assessments were reviewed prior to field visits to determine potential for sensitive plantspecies. General biological surveys, which included an evaluation for sensitive plant species and communities, were previously conducted within the Project Footprint by ENVIRA in January 2004 (Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. 2004). Please note, these surveys included the entire Project Footprint plus additional areas.

4.2 Field Methodology

4.2.1 Field Surveys
A general biological survey was conducted within the Project Footprint on April 14, 2022 by VCS biologists Darcy Hardwick, Wade Caffrey, Molly Burdick-Whipp and Nathalie Munoz. The remaining three focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on May 10, June 6, and June 20, 2022. During the both the general biological survey and focused burrowing owl surveys, the biologists walked the entirety of the Project Footprint, paying special attention to those areas that could host sensitive vegetation communities or had the potential to provide suitable habitat for special status plant species. Plant species were identified using plant field and taxonomical guides, such as The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). All plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes.

The vegetation communities and habitat conditions were inspected to confirm presence and habitat quality of the vegetation found onsite. Where appropriate, descriptions of vegetation communities from the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) were also utilized. Any deviations from standard vegetation classifications were made on best professional judgment when areas did not fit into a specific habitat description provided by the 751
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
11 June 2023
MCV. Vegetation communities were mapped using field observations and utilizing aerial imagery.

Plant species were identified in the field.

Scientific and common names for those species that are considered special status conform to the Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2022c). Non-special status scientific and common names conform to the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2017).

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Previous Biological Reports
No sensitive plant species or communities were observed and it was determined there was no potential for sensitive plant species or communities at the time of the 2004 General Biological Assessment Report. The 2004 Report noted that a majority of the Project Footprint was devoid of vegetation or planted in row crops. The 2004 Report also noted scattered eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) across the property as well as cattail (Typha latifolia) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioca) present around an agricultural pond which was filled around 2008 and is no longer present.

4.3.2 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover
Vegetation/land cover mapping and acreages for each vegetation community and land type within the Project Footprint can be found in Table 1 and are depicted on Figure 5 (Vegetation/Land Cover Map) per the April 2022 general biological survey. The majority of the Project Footprint is highly disturbed. During vegetation mapping of the Project, one vegetation alliance, Tamarisk thickets (Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi-Natural Alliance), was identified. Two additional vegetation types are identified that did not meet alliance membership requirements of the Manual of California Vegetation (MVC, 2009). Detailed descriptions of each of these vegetation/land type including Agricultural Row Crops and Herbaceous Non-native Forbs and Grasses can be found below. These lands were nearly devoid of native plant species. Those native plant species present are “ruderal/weedy” in habit, in that they commonly occur in highly disturbed conditions.

Representative photographs of the Project Footprint are included as Appendix A.

Table 1. Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Observed
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Project Footprint

Project Site (Acres)
ROW Improvements
(acres)
Disturbed/Developed 21.02 11.80
Agricultural – Row Crops 110.05 0.08
Herbaceous Non-native Forbs and Grasses 41.29 0.03
752
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
12 June 2023
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Project Footprint

Project Site (Acres)
ROW Improvements
(acres)
Tamarisk thickets 0.54 -
Total 172.91* 11.91**
*Sum is 0.01 acre smaller due to rounding. Correct total is 172.91 ac. **ROW impacts are less than ROW Improvement area, because no impacts will occur within Cucamonga Creek.

Disturbed/Developed
Approximately 21.02 acres of disturbed/developed land cover was mapped within the Project site, while 11.80 acres was mapped within the ROW improvement area. The disturbed/developed areas include unpaved and paved roads, the outskirts of the existing agricultural crop fields and other construction related debris.

Agricultural – Row Crops
Approximately 110.05 acres of the land within the Project Site is considered agricultural row crops.

The western half of the Project site (west of Cucamonga Creek) is an active agricultural and irrigated crop production site. An additional 0.08 acres of agricultural row crops are located within the ROW improvement areas.

Herbaceous Non-native Forbs and Grasses
Approximately 41.29 acres of the Project site are considered herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses. An additional 0.03 acres was mapped within the ROW improvements area. This land cover is located mainly on the eastern portions of the Project site (east of Cucamonga Creek) and is dominated by ruderal non-native herbaceous vegetation such as cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), london rocket (Sisymbrium irio), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus).

Native species observed within this land cover include common fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.).

Tamarisk thickets - Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi-Natural Alliance Approximately 0.54 acre of tamarisk thickets was mapped within the Project site. This vegetation/land cover located in the western portion of the site is dominated in the shrub and tree canopy by Tamarix ramosissima.

4.3.3 Special Status Vegetation Communities
The site does not support any sensitive vegetation communities. Additionally, no sensitive communities were reported in the CNDDB within two miles of the Project Footprint. 753
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
13 June 2023

4.3.4 Plants
A total of 25 plant species were observed within the Project Footprint during the biological surveys and are listed in Appendix B.

4.3.5 Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur
Sensitive plant species include federally, or state listed threatened or endangered species and those species listed on CNPS’s rare and endangered plant inventory. Species with the potential to occur onsite were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions, and are listed in Appendix C.

No sensitive plant species were observed within the Project Footprint during the April 2022 biological survey. Based on the habitat found onsite, special status plant species are not likely to occur onsite, primarily based on the absence of suitable habitat and highly disturbed soils due to current and previous agriculture.

An assessment of sensitive plant species and their potential to occur, as well as their federal/ state/local classifications, are listed in Appendix C.

4.4 Project Impacts

4.4.1 Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Potential impacts to vegetation communities/land cover types due to implementation of the Project includes the entire Project Footprint, totaling approximately 236 acres, which includes the habitat types shown in Table 1 (Section 4.3.1 above) and Figure 5. The proposed Project will not impact any native habitats or any special-status habitats.

Direct impacts to disturbed/developed, herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses, tamarisk thickets, and agricultural vegetation/land cover types are considered less than significant because these habitats/land covers are common in the surrounding vicinity and do not represent CNDDB or CDFW sensitive plant communities.

4.4.2 Potential Impacts to Special Status Plants
None of the forty-four special status plant species that have been reported to occur in the vicinity of the Project are expected to occur within the Project Footprint. Based on the high levels of disturbance, low habitat quality and the lack of detection of any special-status plants during the biological survey, the Project is not expected to impact any special-status plant species. Based on the habitat found onsite, no direct impacts are expected to occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation is recommended.
754
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
14 June 2023

5.0 WILDLIFE

5.1 Literature Review
Species of wildlife are afforded “special status” by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or nongovernmental organizations because of their recognized rarity, potential vulnerability to extinction, and local importance. These species typically have a limited geographic range and/or limited habitat and are referred to collectively as “special status” species. Wildlife species were considered “special status” species if they meet any of the following criteria:
• Taxa with official status under ESA or CESA.
• Taxa proposed for listing under ESA and/or CESA.
• Taxa designated a species of special concern by CDFW. • Taxa designated a state fully protected species by CDFW. • Taxa identified as sensitive, unique or rare, by the USFWS, CDFW, USFS, and/or BLM. • Taxa that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the CEQA §15380(b) and (d). • Species considered locally significant; that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances.

Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range.

Special status wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the immediate region of the Project were identified. Several agencies, including the USFWS and CDFW publish lists of particular taxa (species and subspecies) and the associated level of protection or concern associated with each. Reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on the Project Footprint and included the following sources listed below:
• The CNDDB was used to identify any special status wildlife that may exist within the following USGS Quadrangles: Ontario, Guasti, Fontana, Prado Dam, Corona North, and Riverside West. CNDDB records are generally used as a starting point when determining what special status species, if any, may occur in a particular area. However, these records may be old, lack of data not yet entered, and do not represent all the special status species that could be in that particular area (Figure 6 – Critical Habitat and CNDDB Occurrences). • A map of USFWS critical habitat to determine species with critical habitat mapped in the general vicinity of the Project (USFWS 2021a).
755
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
15 June 2023
• Pertinent maps, scientific literature, websites, and regional flora and fauna field guides.

The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring within the Project Footprint, as well as the surrounding area. Although the inventory list of special status wildlife species was not exhaustive of all species that might be of concern for the property, it provided a wide range of species that are representative of the wildland habitats in the area. Species occurrence and distribution information is often based on documented occurrences where opportunistic surveys have taken place; therefore, a lack of records does not necessarily indicate that a given species is absent from the Project Footprint.

5.1.1 Previous Biological Assessments
Previous biological assessments were reviewed prior to field visits to determine potential for sensitive wildlife species. General biological surveys were previously conducted within the Project Footprint by ENVIRA in January 2004, when a burrowing owl was observed onsite. Focused Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) surveys were conducted by Larry Munsey International in 2002 and 2003 (Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. 2004), with an additional DSF habitat assessment survey was conducted by Ken Osborne in 2022. Please note, these surveys included the entire Project Footprint plus additional areas.

5.2 Field Methodology
The purpose of the April 14, 2022 biological survey was to note and identify habitat areas that could be suitable for special status wildlife species. All wildlife species encountered visually or audibly during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes. Signs of wildlife species including wildlife tracks, burrows, nests, scat and remains, were also recorded. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife and in areas not accessible on foot. Wildlife field guides and photographs were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the field survey, as necessary. A one-day survey cannot be used to conclusively determine presence or absence of a species; therefore, assessments of presence/absence and potential for occurrence were made based on presence of suitable habitat to support the species, diagnostic signs (burrows, scat, tracks, vocalizations, and nests), known records or occurrence within the area, known distribution and elevation range, and habitat utilization from the relevant literature.

5.2.1 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Four Focused Surveys A habitat assessment and initial focused survey for burrowing owl was conducted by VCS Biologists on April 14, 2022 concurrent with the general field biological survey. The remaining three focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on May 10, June 6, and June 20, 2022. The habitat assessment and focused surveys were conducted on foot by walking transects at an appropriate distance apart, visually inspecting and mapping all suitable burrows and notable features within 756
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
16 June 2023
the burrowing owl study area. The burrowing owl study area includes the Project Footprint plus a 500-ft buffer (Figure 7 – Burrowing Owl Study Area).

The surveys were conducted according to the CDFW survey guidelines described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) [Staff Report], to determine the presence or absence and suitable habitat within the Burrowing Owl Study Area. The survey was not conducted during rain, high winds (>20 kilometers per hour), dense fog, cloud cover >75%, or temperatures above 90°F.

During the surveys, VCS paid special attention to those habitat areas that appeared to provide suitable habitat for burrowing owl. The methods used to detect and identify burrowing owl included observation of key signs such as sight, scat, tracks, burrows, nests, and calls. All encountered burrows or structure entrances were checked for the presence of burring owls, molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, tracks, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Natural or man‐made structures and debris piles that could support burrowing owls were also surveyed. All burrows were monitored at a short distance from the entrance, and at a location that would not interfere with owl behavior.

Onsite soil conditions, topography, vegetative communities, and habitat quality were documented during the field survey. All wildlife species encountered visually or audibly during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife.

5.3 Results
A total of 27 wildlife species or signs thereof were observed during the April 2022 general field survey and the April, May, and June 2022 focused burrowing owl surveys. The wildlife species or signs thereof observed during the field survey are listed in Appendix B and discussed below.

5.3.1 Fish
Natural drainages or areas of open water containing suitable fish habitat were not present within the Project Footprint. Therefore, no fish were observed or are expected to occur on the site.

5.3.2 Amphibians
Amphibians are small invertebrates that need water, or a moist environment for at least a portion of their life cycle and many require standing or flowing water for reproduction. Terrestrial species may or may not require standing water for reproduction. These species are able to survive in dry areas by aestivating (i.e., remaining beneath the soil in burrows or under logs and leaf litter, and emerging only when temperatures are low and humidity is high). Many of these species’ habitats are associated with water and they emerge to breed once the rainy season begins. 757
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
17 June 2023
During the general biological survey and focused burrowing owl surveys, no amphibian species were observed within the Project Footprint. Common amphibian species have a low potential to occur on the site due to a lack of suitable habitat.

5.3.3 Reptiles
Reptiles are air-breathing vertebrates covered in special skin made up of scales, bony plates, or a combination of both. Reptiles live in a wide range of habitats. Lizards are all terrestrial, but their habitats may range from deserts to rainforests, and from underground burrows to the tops of trees. Most snakes are terrestrial and live in a wide range of habitats, but some snakes are aquatic.

During the general biological survey and focused burrowing owl surveys, only one species of reptile was observed: the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Other species have low potential to occur onsite due to the current levels of disturbance within the Project Footprint.

5.3.4 Birds
During the biological survey and focused burrowing owl surveys, common birds observed include house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Raptors observed on the site included only the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).

5.3.5 Mammals
During the biological survey and focused burrowing owl surveys, mammal species observed within the Project Footprint included coyote (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii).

5.3.6 Insects

5.3.6.1 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
A habitat suitability evaluation was performed in 2022 by Ken H. Osborne. The entire Project footprint was considered unsuitable for DFS due to lands managed with irrigated crops and areas contaminated with organic debris derived from its history in dairy operations as to be unsuitable for DFS (Appendix D).

5.3.7 Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Sensitive wildlife species include the following classifications: federally or state listed threatened or endangered species, California species of special concern, and fully protected and protected species (as designated by CDFW). Species with the potential to occur onsite were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions. 758
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
18 June 2023
Sensitive wildlife species with at least moderate potential to occur, or greater, but not observed during the biological survey include:
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC). Not observed. High Potential.

A complete list of sensitive wildlife species analyzed with potential to occur within the Project Footprint is included in Appendix C. The sensitive species noted above are described in further detail below.

5.3.7.1 Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is a small, tan, ground‐dwelling owl that occupies and nests in underground burrows. The species is associated with grasslands and other arid open terrain throughout much of the western United States. A disjunct population of this owl also occurs in Florida. Burrowing owls are opportunistic in their selection of burrows, typically utilizing the burrows of small mammals, drainpipes, culverts and other suitable cavities at or below ground level. In California, the species often occurs in association with colonies of the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), where it makes use of the squirrel’s burrows. A burrow can be up to 10 feet in length with an enlarged terminal nesting chamber. The entrance of the burrow is often adorned with animal dung, feathers, debris, and other small objects. The species is active both at day and at night and may be seen perching conspicuously on fence posts or standing at the entrance of their burrows.

During the four focused burrowing owl surveys, no burrowing owls or evidence thereof (i.e., whitewash, pellets, feathers, tracks, eggshell fragments, nest adornment materials, etc.) were observed within the Burrowing Owl Study Area. The eastern portions of the site and outskirts of the western portion provide somewhat suitable habitat within the disturbed/non-native vegetation patches where some suitable burrows were observed.

While no burrowing owls were observed within the Project Footprint or surrounding 500-foot buffer during the survey, the site provides suitable shelter and nesting habitat for burrowing owls and they have been observed in close proximity to the Burrowing Owl Study Area, and previously in 2004 (ENVIRA, 2004); therefore, there is potential for the species to occur on or adjacent to the Project in the future. A pre-construction burrowing owl survey is recommended within 30 days prior to the start of project impact activities to make sure burrowing owl have not colonized the site.

5.3.8 Critical Habitat
The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the Project Footprint 759
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
19 June 2023
occurs within any species designated Critical Habitat. No Critical Habitat exists within 2 miles of the site. The nearest critical habitat is approximately 3 miles south of the Project Footprint and is designated for least Bell’s vireo (Viero bellii pusillus) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). No suitable habitat is present within the Project Footprint for these species.

5.3.9 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population’s health.

Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by:
• Allowing wildlife to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity;
• Providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction; and
• Serving as travel routes for individual wildlife species as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox 1987, Harris and Gallagher 1989).

Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories:
• Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions);
• Seasonal migration; and
• Movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).

The Project is located within a mosaic of developed and partially developed parcels, cleared lands, dairy farms, livestock, and agriculture areas. These areas do not have native habitat and are managed as business operations. Because these industries include open fields for their operation, it is possible the Project Footprint may play a minor role in local wildlife dispersal and foraging.

Common wildlife species including coyotes, skunks, opossums, and raccoons may to travel through the site and neighboring developed areas, but the site does not provide connectivity between 760
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
20 June 2023
large areas of open space on a local or regional scale. The site is not within a significant regional wildlife movement corridor and is not considered to play a role for local or regional wildlife movement.

5.3.10 Avian Nesting and Bat Roosts
There is potential for avian nesting within the Project Footprint. The tamarisk thickets located within the western portion of the Project Footprint and residential ornamental trees provide suitable habitat for avian species that nest in trees. The agricultural and other disturbed fields provide suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting avian species. There is low potential for bat roosting to occur within the Project Footprint. Biologists did not observe signs of nesting activity or bat roosting within the site during the general biological survey; inactive nests were observed within the tamarisk thickets.

5.4 Project Impacts to Wildlife

5.4.1 Potential Impacts to Special Status Wildlife
One sensitive wildlife species exhibits moderate potential to occur on the site. Burrowing owl are known to use both fallow and active agricultural fields for foraging and nesting. Suitably sized burrows were primarily observed on soil berms, debris piles, and pipes located in disturbed/developed land cover within the eastern and western portions of the Project Footprint.

This species was not detected during the biological field visit and burrowing owl habitat assessment conducted in September 2021, or the focused burrowing owl surveys in April, May, and June 2022; however, the species has a high potential to occur as it has been observed previously on the site in 2004 (ENVIRA). If the site were to be colonized, impacts to the burrowing owl would be considered potentially significant under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines due to this species’ decline in the region. Construction activities within the Project Footprint would be implemented in accordance with mitigation requirements outlined in Section 8.0 below.

The remaining species listed in Appendix C are not expected to occur within the Project Footprint due to the lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, there would be no impact on these species and no mitigation would be required.

With the inclusion of standard BMPs as noted in Section 7.0, Best Management Practices, and mitigation recommendations in Section 8.0, Mitigation Recommendations, potential impacts to these special status wildlife species would be considered less than significant.

5.4.2 Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat
The Project does not fall within any Critical Habitat.
761
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
21 June 2023

5.4.3 Potential Impacts to Wildlife Movement/Nesting/Bat Roosts Wildlife Movement
As described earlier, the Project Footprint may serve a function in local wildlife dispersal and foraging; however, due to the disturbed nature of the site and the degraded habitats, the loss of foraging habitat and/or effect on local wildlife movement would be less than significant. No longterm or significant effects to wildlife movement are anticipated due to Project implementation.

Nesting Birds/Raptor Foraging Habitat
Due to the potential for onsite bird nesting and marginal foraging habitat for raptors including eucalyptus and tamarisk, Project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds.

Recommended measures include a pre-construction nesting bird survey and biological monitoring as needed, to avoid impacts. These recommended BMP’s and are outlined in Section 8.0, Mitigation Recommendations. These measures would ensure potential impacts to nesting birds are less than significant.

Bat Foraging Habitat
The potential for bat roosting is low within the Project Footprint and moderate within the 500- foot buffer, while the existing vegetation onsite may represent suitable foraging habitat. However, this impact on foraging habitat would be less than significant given the availability of habitat remaining in the region and the suitable offsite habitat is subject to regular disturbance (i.e. road traffic across a bridge) and project activities are not anticipated to exceed that baseline noise.

Therefore, no mitigation would be required.
762
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
22 June 2023

6.0 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS

6.1 Literature Review
The following sources were reviewed to determine the potential presence or absence of jurisdictional streams/drainages, wetlands, lakes, and their location within the watersheds associated with the Project Footprint, and other features that might contribute to federal or state jurisdictional authority located within watersheds associated with the site:
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS 2022b). The NWI database indicates potential wetland areas based on changes in vegetation patterns as observed from satellite imagery. This database is used as a preliminary indicator of wetland habitats because the satellite data is not precise;
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Provides the locations of “blue-line” streams as mapped on 7.5-Minute Topographic Map coverage; • Aerial Imagery;
• USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps; and
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.

6.2 Field Methodology
A field survey was conducted within the Project Footprint on April 14, 2022 by VCS biologists Wade Caffrey, Darcy Hardwick, Nathalie Munoz and Molly Burdick-Whipp to assess the presence or absence of potential jurisdictional streams/drainages and to conduct a wetland delineation on the site. During the field survey, the Project Footprint was assessed for jurisdictional wetland and nonwetland Waters of the United States (WOUS). To determine the presence of a wetland, three indicators are required: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The RWQCB has exceptions to this methodology in situations where a site has soils and hydrology, but no vegetation is present; these areas may be considered wetlands by the RWQCB. The methodology published in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement sets the standards for meeting each of the three indicators, which normally require that 50 percent or more dominant plant species typical of a wetland, soils exhibiting characteristics of saturation, and hydrological indicators be present. Jurisdictional nonwetland Waters of the United States are typically determined through the observation of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a 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 763
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
23 June 2023
surrounding areas.” Projects with impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.

On June 22, 2020, a revised rule regarding jurisdictional Waters of the United States went into effect. The revised rule states that Waters of the United States do not include ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, including ephemeral streams, swales, gullies, rills, and pools. Consistent with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the regulatory agencies have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule and are interpreting Waters of the United States consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further notice.

The following guidance documents were utilized in making this determination:
• Field Guide to OHWM Determinations in the Arid West (August 2008); • Updated OHWM Datasheet for the Field Guide to OHWM Determinations in the Arid West (July 2010); and
• Ordinary High Flows and the Stage‐Discharge Relationship in the Arid West Region (2011).

The CDFW and the RWQCB take jurisdiction over Waters of the State (WOS) and Riparian/Riverine resources (California Fish and Game Code §§1600 et seq.; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §720). Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) applies to natural rivers, streams, and lakes:
“An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.” The Project Footprint was assessed for jurisdictional WOS during the field survey using guidance from Section 1600 of the FGC and Brady and Vyverberg (2013), which defines a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in which water currently flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.” CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a stream, river, or lake as defined by the CDFW.

The RWQCB has jurisdiction over both waters of the State and waters of the U.S. (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; California Code or Regulations title 23, section 3831(w); Executive Order W-59-93; Section 401 of the CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1341). As identified in the State Wetland 764
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
24 June 2023
Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (“the Procedures”) adopted on April 2, 2019, The Water Boards define an area as wetland as follows:
“An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The Water Code defines “waters of the state” broadly to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” “Waters of the state” includes all “waters of the U.S.” The following wetlands are waters of the state:

Natural wetlands, wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state, and artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state;
c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b): (i) Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, (ii) Settling of sediment, (iii) Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program, (iv) Treatment of surface waters, (v) Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering, (vi) Fire suppression, (vii) Industrial processing or cooling, (viii) Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values, (ix) Log storage, (x) Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, (xi) Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or (xii) Fields flooded for rice growing.

All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic feature meets the wetland 765
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
25 June 2023
definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state.”

6.3 Results

6.3.1 National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater pond, freshwater emergent wetland and riverine are mapped directly east of Cucamonga Creek within the central/western portions of the Project Footprint through the online NWI (USFWS 2022b) [Figure 8] representing the former agricultural pond. None of these features are currently present; based on aerial imagery, the former agricultural pond was filled around the year 2008. The freshwater emergent wetland and riverine features that connect to the freshwater pond were filled and/or dismantled alongside the freshwater pond at that time as well.

6.3.2 Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS (NRCS 2022) identifies two soil types present within the Project Footprint (Figure 9; Soil Map). Soil types on the site consist of Delhi fine sands and Hilmar loamy fine sands.
• Hilmar loamy fine sand: This series is a member of the sandy over loamy, mixed, active, calcareous, thermic family of Aeric Halaquepts. Typically, Hilmar soils have pale brown, mildly alkaline, loamy sand A horizons, very pale brown, very strongly alkaline, loamy sand upper C horizons over light gray and light olive gray, very strongly alkaline, stratified, silt loam lower C horizons.
• Delhi fine sands: The Delhi series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils.

They formed in wind modified material weathered from granitic rock sources. Delhi soils are on floodplains, alluvial fans and terraces.

6.3.3 Jurisdictional Waters
An analysis of current and historic aerial photographs along with the April 2022 field survey did not reveal any jurisdictional features within the Project Footprint.

As described in Section 6.3.1, agricultural holding ponds occur west of Haven Avenue that have no connections with surface drainages and contained herbaceous, non-native vegetation. An earthen ditch feature occurs along the western boundary of the site that was recently constructed for slope stability in conjunction with the adjacent residential development. Lastly, an earthen ditch feature is located within the eastern portion of the Project Footprint, containing primarily tree tobacco, golden crownbeard, and a few mulefat individuals, consistent with vegetation types in this part of the site. This is an isolated ditch feature, created to capture runoff from the previous 766
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
26 June 2023
dairy/cattle operations onsite similar to the agricultural holding ponds noted above. These types of features associated with agricultural operations are identified as non-jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR § 120.2). Furthermore, the features are not identified as jurisdictional waters of the State as they lack downstream connectivity and do not represent wetland features based on the lack hydrophytic vegetation and presence of primarily upland vegetation.

Additional non-jurisdictional detention basins were installed by Lewis when tract 20316 was graded in 2020. They were installed for temporary drainage as required per the Project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). They will all be removed when grading is completed.

County Line Channel and a storm drain culvert occur along the southern boundary of the Project along Bellgrave Avenue. The storm drain culvert was constructed for ultimate connection of the developments’ storm drains; thus, it will convey flows from the residential development in the post-development condition and is not sized to convey current site runoff.

No jurisdictional waters or wetlands are present within the Project Footprint.

6.3.4 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional waters are considered to be absent from the Project Footprint; therefore, no impacts to jurisdictional waters are anticipated.
767
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
27 June 2023

7.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Implementation of general BMPs isrecommended to the extent practical. Key aspects of the BMPs are to clearly delineate the limits of disturbance, use properly maintained equipment, properly implement and monitor water quality BMPs, avoid use of chemicals near sensitive areas, develop procedures for minimizing the likelihood of spills and to control sediment, ensure worker safety, and minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources onsite including sensitive wildlife species.

Standard BMPs will be implemented including compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater requirements for the control of fugitive dust and management of water quality. 768
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
28 June 2023

8.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following mitigation measures from the Parkside Specific Plan Draft EIR are incorporated into the proposed development within the Project Footprint, which is required to comply with applicable requirements for development associated with the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment PA 1-23.

MM BIO-1 There may be a probability of owl colonization within the project site considering the presence of foraging habitat and previous records of presence. To ensure that no direct loss of individuals occurs, mitigation shall be completed prior to initiation of on-site grading activities for each development phase. A pre- construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey will be conducted 30 days prior to construction activities including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site should be resurveyed for owls.

If owls are determined to be present within the construction footprint, they will be captured and relocated. If non-breeding owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques will be used. The pre-construction survey and any relocation activity will be conducted in accordance with the CDFG Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 1995. According to CDFG guidelines, mitigation actions will be conducted from September 1 to January 31, which is prior to the nesting season. However, burrowing owl nesting activity is variable, and as such the time frame will be adjusted accordingly. Should eggs or fledglings be discovered in any owl burrow, the burrow cannot be disturbed (pursuant to CDFG guidelines) until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a stage that they can leave the nest on their own).

Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by the Department of Fish and Game verifies through non-invasive methods that either: a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or b) the juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If a biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of the burrowing owls nest during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young.
769
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
29 June 2023
Passive relocation can be used to exclude owls from their burrows (outside the breeding season or once the young are able to leave the nest and fly) by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These one-way doors allow the owl to exit the burrow, but not enter it. These doors should be left in place 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow. Artificial burrows should be provided nearby. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of burrows before excavating burrows in the impact area. Burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible pipe should be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow.

MM BIO-2 To mitigate for potential impacts to loss of nesting and foraging habitat, the project proponent shall be required to pay City of Ontario open space mitigation fees. Fees collected will be used “to acquire and restore mitigation lands to offset impacts to species now living in the New Model Colony and impacts to existing open space,” according to the City of Ontario Development Impacts Fee Calculation Report and the Settlement and general Release Agreement. Development is currently required to pay $4,320 per acre.

MM BIO-3 While project impacts to individual raptor species were considered to be not significant, the following mitigation measure will also be incorporated in order to eliminate or reduce any potential impacts to raptors and/or migratory birds.

Construction and/or removal of windrow trees will occur outside of the nesting season (the nesting season for songbirds is February 1st through August 31st, and the nesting season is January 15th to August 31st for raptors). If tree removal activities must occur during the breeding season, the mitigation measure in MM Bio 4 shall be implemented.

MM BIO-4 If project construction activities involving heavy equipment and/or windrow tree removal are to occur during the nesting/breeding season (between February 1st and August 31st for songbirds; and between January 15th and to August 31st for raptors) of potentially occurring sensitive bird species, a pre-construction field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of species protected by MBTA or CDFG are present in the construction zone or within a buffer of 500 feet. Pre- construction nesting/breeding surveys shall be conducted in all CDFG jurisdictional areas and within windrow trees. If no active nests are found during the survey, construction activities may proceed. If active nests are located during the preconstruction surveys, no grading, heavy equipment or tree removal activities shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive bird nests (non-listed), and 100 feet of most common songbird nests.
770
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
30 June 2023

9.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012.

The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University California Press, Berkeley.

BonTerra (BonTerra Consulting). 2008 (February 26). The Lakes Specific Plan Project Final Biological Technical Report. Costa Mesa, CA: BonTerra.

Brady, Roland H. III and Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility-Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2014-013.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022a. RareFind, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Retrieved from <https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/ RareFind.aspx>.
2022b. Natural Communities. VegCAMP, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed August 2021 from <https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities>. 2022c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Natural Diversity Database.

Dated July 2021.
2022d. Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616. Retrieved from <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FGC&secti onNum=1602>.
2022e State and federally listed endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California.

Natural Diversity Database. Dated July 2021.
2022f. Special Animals List. Natural Diversity Database. Dated July 2021.

CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 2012.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Retrieved in August 2021 from <http://www.rareplants.cnps.org>.

Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762-1768.

Google. 2022. Google Earth© website.
771
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project
Biological Technical Report
31 June 2023
Harris, L.D. and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New Initiatives for Wildlife Conservation: The Need for Movement Corridors (pp. 11–34). Preserving Communities and Corridors (G. Mackintosh, Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife.

Historic Aerials. Accessed 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2022. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from:
<http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>.

Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie M. Evens. 2008. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society and California Department of Fish and Game.

Sacramento, California.

Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors. Conservation Biology 1(1): 63–71. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS:

Environmental Laboratory.
2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Retrieved from <https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/ webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77>. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from:
<http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html>.

Western Bat Working Group. 2007. Species description. Available online at:
<http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/>.
772

FIGURES
773
^_
²
1:250,000
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
Regional Map
Map Date: May 2022
Data Sources: ESRI,
County of San Bernardino
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri,
HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap,
INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri
Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the
GIS User Community
Parkside
^_Project Location
Figure 1
774
²
1:6,500
0 300 600
Feet
Aerial
Map
Project Footprint (185.81 ac)
Project Site (172.91 ac)
Great Park (43.50 ac)
Offsite Improvements (12.91 ac)
Not A Part (13.00 ac)
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
Google Earth
Parkside
Figure 2
775
Guasti
Corona North
Prado Dam Ontario
²
1:24,000
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
USGS
Topographic
Map
Project Footprint

7.5-Minute Quadrangle
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
USGS
Service Layer Credits:

7.5-min Quadrangle: Corona North
Section: 15
Township: T2S
Range: R7W
Meridian: San Bernardino
State: California
County: San Bernardino
Figure 3
776
Figure 4: Land Use Plan
777
²
1:6,500
0 300 600
Feet
Vegetation
Map
Project Footprint
Project Site
Offsite Improvements
Great Park
(Not A Part)
Vegetation / Land Cover
Agricultural - row crops (110.13 ac)
Disturbed / Developed (32.82 ac)
Herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses (41.33 ac)
Tamarisk thickets (0.54 ac)
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
Google Earth
Parkside
Figure 5
778
²
*No Critical Habitat is
located within 2 miles
of Project Footprint.
1:45,000
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Critical Habitat
and CNDDB
Occurrences Map
Project Footprint
2-mile Buffer
CNDDB Occurrences
California black rail
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
San Bernardino aster
burrowing owl
golden eagle
smooth tarplant
tricolored blackbird
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
CDFW
Service Layer Credits: Esri,
HERE, Garmin, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar
Geographics, and the GIS User
Community
Parkside
Figure 6
779
²
1:7,500
0 350 700
Feet
Burrowing Owl
Study Area Map
Project Footprint
Study Area (includes 500-foot buffer)
Project Site
Offsite Improvements
Great Park
(Not A Part)
Burrow Location
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
Google Earth
Parkside
Figure 7
780
²
1:6,500
0 300 600
Feet
National Wetland
Inventory Map
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
USACE, Google Earth
Parkside
Figure 8
Project Footprint
Project Site
Offsite Improvements
Great Park
(Not A Part)
Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
781
²
1:6,500
0 300 600
Feet
Soils Map
Project Footprint
Project Site
Offsite Improvements
Great Park
(Not A Part)
Soil Type
Delhi fine sand (Db)
Hilmar loamy fine sand (Hr)
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
Google Earth, USDA
Parkside
Figure 9
782

APPENDIX A
Site Photographs
783
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
A-2
Photo 1. Typical view of the Project site from a northern portion of the Project site facing south, showing agricultural communities. Photo date: June 3, 2022.

Photo 2. View of the disturbed habitat within the Project site, taken from the eastern portion of the site; viewing north. Photo date: June 3, 2022.
784
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
A-3
Photo 3. A view the culvert on Project site, taken from the center of the property; facing east; Photo date:

June 3, 2022.

Photo 4. View of disturbed land in the Project site; viewing east. Photo date: June 20, 2022. 785
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
A-4
Photo 5. View of central portion of Project site, showing disturbed habitat, tamarisk, and agricultural communities; viewing west. Photo date: May 10, 2022.

Photo 6. View of Project site from the Northwest corner of the site, showing Edison Ave, disturbed habitat, and agricultural communities; viewing east. Photo date: May 10, 2022. 786

APPENDIX B
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed
787
Appendix B – Species Observed
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
B-2
Plant Species Observed within the Project Site

Scientific Name Common Name
Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family
Atriplex prostrata* Spear-leaved orache
Bassia scoparia* Summer cypress
Chenopodium album* Lamb’s quarters
Asteraceae Aster, Daisy, or Compositae Family
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed
Helianthus annuus Common sunflower
Oncosiphon pilulifer* Stinknet
Verbesina encelioides Cowpen daisy
Boraginaceae Borage Family
Amsinkia intermedia Common fiddleneck
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
Brassica nigra* Black mustard
Sisymbrium irio* London rocket

Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot family
Salsola tragus* Russian thistle

Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family
Euphorbia sp.* Spurge

Fabaceae Pea Family
Medicago sativa* Alfalfa
Melilotus officinalis* Sweet yellow clover
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
Erodium sp. Heron’s bill
Malvaceae Mallow Family
Malva parviflora* Little mallow (cheeseweed)
Myrtaceae Myrtle Family
Eucalyptus camaldulensis* River red gum
Poaceae Grasses
788
Appendix B – Species Observed
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
B-3
Scientific Name Common Name
Avena fatua* Wildoats
Polypogon monspeliensis* Annual beard grass
Zea mays Corn
Solanaceae Sacred datura
Nicotiana glauca* Tree tobacco
Solanum Americanum American black nightshade
Tamaricaceae Tamarisk Family
Tamarix sp.* Tamarisk
Urticaceae Nettle Family
Urtica dioica* Stinging nettle
Urtica urens* Dwarf nettle
* Non-native species.
789
Appendix B – Species Observed
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
B-4
Wildlife Species Observed/Detected within the Project Site

Scientific Name Common Name
Aves - Birds
Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, Eagles, and Allies
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Alaudidae Larks
Eremophilia alpestris Horned lark
Anatidae Ducks
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard
Cathartidae New World Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Charadriidae Plovers
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Columbidae Pigeons and Doves
Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared-dove
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Corvidae Jays, Magpies and Crows
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax Common raven
Fringillidae Finches
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch
Hirundinidae Swallows
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow
Stelgidopteryx serripennis Rough-winged swallow
Mimidae Mockingbirds and Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Passerellidae New World Sparrows
Melospiza melodia Song sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensi Savannah sparrow
790
Appendix B – Species Observed
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
B-5
Scientific Name Common Name
Passeridae Old World Sparrows
Passer domesticus House sparrow
Passeriformes Perching birds
Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Scolopacidae Sandpipers
Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowleg
Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird
Tyrannidae Tyrant flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
Reptilia - Reptiles

Phrynosomatidae North American Spiny Lizards
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Mammalia - Mammals

Canidae Dog-like carnivorans
Canis latrans Coyote

Leporidae Rabbits and Hares
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
† sensitive species
791

APPENDIX C
Special Status Species
Potential Occurrence Determination
792
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-1
This page intentionally left blank.
793
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-2

APPENDIX C
Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Determination This table summarizes conclusions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potential occurrence of special status species within the Project Footprint. During the field surveys, the potential for special status species to occur within the site was assessed based on the following criteria:
• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.
• High potential to occur: observed in similar habitat in the region by a qualified biologist, or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species and the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species.
• Moderate potential to occur: reported sightings in surrounding region, or the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by or typical of the species.
• Low potential to occur: the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species or no suitable habitat is present, or there are no known recorded occurrences of the species within or adjacent to the site.
• Absent: a focused study failed to detect the species or the site is outside the known distribution and elevation range of the species.
• Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.

Even with field surveys, biologists assess the probability of occurrence rather than make a definitive conclusion about species’ presence or absence. Failure to detect the presence of the species is not definitive and may be due to variable effects associated with fire, rainfall patterns, and/or season.
794
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-3
Special Status Species: Potential to Occur within the Project Footprint Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
PLANTS
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
Chaparral sandverbena (also
foothill sandverbena)
CRPR: 1B.1,

BLMS, FSS
Exposed sites with sandy soils, especially washes and dunes, in chaparral, sage scrub, and alluvial scrub.

Elevation: 75 - 1600 meters
Blooming period: (Jan)March - September
Low; marginal habitat
present (sandy soil),
however, species
unlikely to occur due
to the high levels of
historic disturbance
and was not observed
during the biological
survey that occurred
during the blooming
period.

Ambrosia pumila San Diego
ambrosia
FE, CRPR:
1B.1
Range extends from Riverside County through San Diego County into Baja California. Found along drainages and areas adjacent to riparian areas.

Elevation: 20 - 415 meters
Blooming period: April - October
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Arenaria
paludicola
Marsh sandwort CRPR: 1B.1,
G1, S1
This perennial herb is native to California, and also found in Washington. It grows in dense areas of reeds, cattails, rushes, and bulrushes, with the only natural known population in Oso Flaco Lake in San Luis Obispo County, with introduced populations elsewhere Elevation: < 300 m
Blooming period: May – August
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton’s milkvetchFE, CRPR:
1B.1
Endemic to carbonate soils (limestone outcrops) of the foothills of the southern California mountains. It commonly occurs in disturbed chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and closed-cone forests.

Elevation: 6 – 640 meters
Blooming period: January - August
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.
795
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-4
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Atriplex coulteri Coulter's
saltbush
CRPR: 1B.2 Native to coastal southern California and northern Baja California, where it is quite rare. It grows in areas of saline and alkaline soils, such as ocean bluffs.

Elevation: 3 - 460 meters
Blooming period: March - October
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry FE, SE,
CRPR: 1B.1
Evergreen species of flowering shrub found in a variety of different topographical conditions ranging from nearly flat sandy washes, terraces, and canyon floors to ridges and mountain summits. Associated with mesic habitats and plant communities such as alluvial scrub, chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian scrub or woodland. Endemic to southern California, where it is known from very few occurrences in the chaparral of inland canyons and foothills.

Elevation: 70 - 825 meters
Blooming period: (Feb)March - June
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved
brodiaea

FT, SE,
CRPR: 1B.1,
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Found in floodplains in semi-alkaline mudflats, vernal pools, mesic southern needlegrass grassland, mixed native-nonnative grassland, alkali grassland, and alluvial fan sage scrub plant communities. Requires very heavy clay soils. The range of this species extends from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains at Glendora in Los Angeles County, east to Arrowhead Hot Springs in the western foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County, and south through eastern Orange and western Riverside Counties to the City of San Diego.

Elevation: 25 – 1,120 meters
Blooming period: March - June
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat. No
clay soils present.

Calochortus
catalinae
Catalina
mariposa lily
CRPR: 4.2 The bulb is endemic to Southern California. It is native along the coastline in grasslands and open chaparral and woodlands habitats, especially on the Channel Islands and in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Elevation: 15 – 700 meters
Blooming period: (Feb)March - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily
CRPR: 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb endemic to California. Habitat includes granitic, rocky soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
796
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-5
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
grassland. Threatened by development, fire suppression, foot traffic, mining, powerline construction, and recreational activities. Less common at higher elevations.

Elevation: 100 - 1700 meters
Blooming period: May - July
Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
Intermediate
mariposa-lily
CRPR: 1B.2,
FSS
Dry, rocky, open slopes within chaparral, sage scrub, or grasslands.

Elevation: 105 – 855 meters
Blooming period: May - July
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Calystegia felix lucky morninggloryCRPR: 1B.1 Meadows and seeps (sometimes alkaline), Riparian scrub (alluvial) Elevation: 30-215 meters
Blooming period: March -September
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Calystegia sepium
ssp. binghamiae
Santa Barbara
morning-glory
CRPR: 1A,
G5
Occurs in coastal salt marshes and wetland riparian areas.

Elevation: < 20 meters
Blooming period: April - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Camissoniopsis
lewisii
Lewis’ eveningprimroseCRPR: 3 Native to southern California and Baja California, where it grows in coastal habitat and on the grasslands of the inland mountain ranges.

Sandy or clay habitat including coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 0 - 300 meters
Blooming period: March - May(June)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant CRPR: 1B.1 Suitable habitat for the smooth tarplant includes alkali scrub, alkali playas, and grasslands with alkaline affinities.

Elevation: 0 – 640 meters
Blooming period: April - September
Low; was not observed
during biological
surveys that occurred
during the blooming
period and the site
lacks suitable habitat
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird’s-beak
CRPC: 1B.2 Annual herb prefers suitable habitat includes coastal dunes, salt marshes, wetlands, and swamps
Elevation: 0 - 30 meters
Blooming period: May – October(November)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower
CRPR: 1B.1,

BLMS, FSS
Parry's spineflower occurs within the alluvial chaparral and scrub of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
797
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-6
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Elevation: 275 - 1,220 meters
Blooming period: April - June
Cladium
californicum
California
sawgrass
CRPR: 2B.2 Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. Alkaline or freshwater.

Elevation: 60 – 1600 meters
Blooming period: June – September
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning-glory
CRPR: 4.2 Annual herb native to California and Baja California. Found in clay substrates (occasionally serpentine) in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. Rare in southern California. Threatened by development and vehicles.

Elevation: 30 - 740 meters
Blooming period: March - July
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat. No clay soils
present.

Deinandra
paniculata
San Diego
tarplant
(paniculate
tarplant)
CRPR: 4.2 Occurs as a dominant or co-dominant plant in the herbaceous layer of grasslands, forblands, openings of coastal sage scrub and oak woodland.

Often in sandy soils.

Elevation: 25 – 950 meters
Blooming period: (Mar)April – November (Dec)
Low; was not observed
during biological
surveys that occurred
during the blooming
period and the site
lacks suitable habitat
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower

FE, SE,
CRPR: 1B.1
Slender-horned spineflower is endemic to southwestern cismontane California, ranging from central Los Angeles County east to San Bernardino County, and south to southwestern Riverside County in the foothills of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges. Slender-horned spineflower is found in sandy soil in association with mature alluvial scrub.

Elevation: 200 - 760 meters
Blooming period: April - June
Low; was not observed
during biological
surveys that occurred
during the blooming
period site lacks
suitable habitat.

Dudleya
multicaulis
many-stemmed
dudleya
CRPR: 1B.2,

BLMS, FSS
Many-stemmed dudleya is often associated with clay soils in barrens, rocky places, and ridgelines as well as thinly vegetated openings in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and southern needlegrass grasslands on clay soils.

Elevation: 15 – 790 meters
Blooming period: April - July
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.

Santa Ana River
woollystar

FE, SE,
CRPR: 1B.1,
This plant is found only within open washes and early-successional alluvial fan scrub on open slopes above main watercourses on fluvial Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.
798
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-7
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
sanctorum deposits where flooding and scouring occur at a frequency that allows the persistence of open shrublands.

Elevation: 91 – 610 meters
Blooming period: April - September
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
mesa horkelia CRPR: 1B.1,
FSS
Perennial herb native and endemic to California. Occurs in sandy or gravelly habitat within chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub. Distributed along the central to south coast of California, found in San Luis Obispo, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles counties. It once flourished in San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties as well, but has become locally extinct in these areas.

Elevation: 70 - 810 meters
Blooming period: February – July (September)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Juglans californica Southern
California black
walnut
CRPR: 4.2 Perennial deciduous tree endemic to California. Habitat includes alluvial substrates, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland. Threatened by urbanization, grazing, non-native plants, and possibly by lack of natural reproduction.

Elevation: 50 - 900 meters
Blooming period: March - August
Absent. The species
was not observed
during the survey.

Juncus acutus ssp.
leopoldii
southwestern
spiny rush
CRPR: 4.2 The species range extends from Arizona to Baja and the central California coast. It is typically found in moist, saline, or alkaline areas within coastal, foothill, and desert regions.

Elevation: 3 – 900 meters
Blooming period: March (May) - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields
CRPR: 1B.1,
BLMS
Coulter's goldfields is associated with low-lying alkali habitats along the coast and in inland valleys. Most of the populations are associated with coastal salt marsh. Coulter's goldfields occur primarily in the alkali vernal plains community.

Elevation: 1 – 1200 meters
Blooming period: February - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Lepidium
virginicum
var. robinsonii
Robinson’s
peppergrass
CRPR: 4.3 Annual herb occurring in dry sandy or thin soils in coastal sage scrub and chaparral.

Elevation: 1 – 885 meters
Blooming period: January - July
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
799
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-8
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Lycium parishii Parish's desertthornCRPR: 2B.3 Perennial shrub within coastal scrub and Sonoran desert scrub. Sandy to rocky slopes, canyons, and washes.

Elevation: 135 – 1,000 meters
Blooming period: March – April
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish’s bush
mallow
CRPR 1A Known from a single historical record in a chaparral and coastal sage scrub wash in San Bernardino County from which it is now extirpated.

Elevation: 305 – 455 meters
Blooming period: June – July
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Microseris
douglasii
var. platycarpha
small-flowered
microseris
CRPR:4.2 Clay soils in association with native grasslands or vernal pools.

Elevation: 15 – 1070 meters
Blooming period: March - May
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Monardella
australis ssp.

Jokerstii
Jokerst's
monardella
CRPR: 1B.1,
FSS
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs in steep scree or talus, stony benches on canyon bottoms in montane forest (or chaparral) Elevation: (160)1350 – 1750 m (Jepson eFlora)
Blooming period: Jul – Sep (Jepson eFlora)
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Monardella
pringlei
Pringle's
monardella
CRPR: 1A Interior sand dunes, sandy soils. Last documented in 1941; habitat mostly destroyed by urbanization, very little potential habitat remains.

Elevation: 300 - 400 meters
Blooming period: (April, Jepson eFlora) May - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Muhlenbergia
californica
California muhly CRPR: 4.3 A perennial grass found in mesic, seeps and streambanks. Habitat includes chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps.

Elevation: 100 – 2,000 meters
Blooming period: June - September
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Muhlenbergia utilis aparejo grass CRPR: 2B.2 Grows in wet habitats, including riverbanks and meadows, sometimes in alkaline or serpentine soils.

Elevation: 25 – 2,325 meters
Blooming period: March – October
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate vernal
pool navarretia
CRPR: 1B.2 Found in alkaline floodplains, vernal pools, meadows and seeps. Known to occur in Los Angeles, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties and is thought to be extirpated from Alameda and San Bernardino counties.

Elevation: 3 – 1,210 meters
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
800
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-9
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Blooming period: April - July
Phacelia stellaris Brand’s phacelia
(Brand’s star
phacelia)
CRPR: 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub.

Elevation: 1 - 400 meters
Blooming period: March - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit
tobacco
CRPR: 2B.2 Sandy or gravelly benches, dry stream bottoms, and canyon bottoms.

Elevation: 0 – 2,100 meters
Blooming period: (July) August – November (December)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija
poppy
CRPR: 4.2 This poppy is native to southern California and Baja California, where it grows in dry washes and canyons below 1,200 m in open, mildly disturbed sage scrub, chaparral and along rocky drainages, sometimes in areas recently burned. It is a popular ornamental plant, kept for its large, showy flowers.

Elevation: 20 – 1200 meters
Blooming period: March – July (August)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Senecio aphanactis Chaparral
ragwort (rayless
ragwort)
CRPR: 2B.2 Alkaline flats and dry, open rocky areas of coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub. Known from Central Western California and South Coast to Baja California.

Elevation: 15 - 800 meters
Blooming period: January – April (May)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
CRPR: 2B.2,
FSS
It can be found in a diverse number of alkaline/mesic habitat types including chaparral and coastal sage scrub, Yellow Pine Forest, and riparian zones, creosote bush scrub, and alkali flats and other salty substrates. Possibly extirpated from the Western Transverse Ranges (Baldwin et al. 2012).

Elevation: 15 – 1,530 meters
Blooming period: March - June
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb of mesic habitat, cismontane woodland, and meadows and seeps.

Elevation: 300 - 2000 meters (CNPS); 240 – 2870 m (Jepson eFlora) Blooming period: April -July (June, Jepson eFlora)
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
CRPR: 1B.2,

BLMS, FSS
Endemic to Southern California, where it is known only from the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains of the Transverse Ranges, and Low-moderate; site
contains grassland and
disturbed habitat
801
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-10
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
part of the Peninsular Ranges to the south. It grows in grassland and meadow habitat, often near springs, and in disturbed areas.

Elevation: 0 – 2,040 meters
Blooming period: May (July) – October (January)
Thysanocarpus
rigidus
rigid fringepod CRPR: 1B.2,
G2, S2, FSS
Plant found in oak/pine woodlands and rocky slopes
Elevation: 600 – 2200 m
Blooming period: February - May
Absent; site lacks
suitable habitat.

Yucca brevifolia Joshua Tree CRPR: CBR,

GNR, SNR
A tree found in California and elsewhere within Joshua tree woodlands of both desert flats and slopes. Prefers coarse, dry, and well-drained soils.

Elevation: 400 – 2300 m
Blooming period: March - May
Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

INVERTEBRATES
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
SCE Uncommon species of coastal California east towards the Sierras; select food plan genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, Eriogonum. Also like lotus, Encelia sp., milk weed, and non-native grassland. Don’t prefer dense non-native vegetation. Nest in the ground but are not limited by compact soils unless no rodent burrows or crevices are present. Highly impacted by urbanization; unlikely to be found in fragmented habitats and more likely to be found in large undisturbed areas or sites with direct connections to large undisturbed areas.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat due to
disturbance
Euphydryas editha
quino
quino
checkerspot
butterfly
FE Each phase has distinct habitat requirements. Habitat associations seem to be tied to both host plant species and topography. Larvae feed immediately upon Plantago erecta, Plantago patagonia, Antirrhinum coulterianum, Cordylanthus rigidus and possibly other Plantago species and Collinsia concolor, and Castilleja exserta. After diapause, the larvae feed again on Plantago erecta before metamorphosing. After metamorphose, the adults nectar mostly on small annuals. The Quino checkerspot butterfly is found in association with topographically diverse open woody canopy landscapes that contain low to moderate levels of non-native vegetation compared to disturbed habitat.

Vegetation types that support the Quino checkerspot are coastal sage Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
802
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-11
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
scrub, open chaparral, juniper woodland, forblands, and native grassland. Soil and climatic conditions, as well as ecological and physical factors, affect the suitability of habitat within the species’ range.

Gonidea angulata western ridged
mussel
Not listed;
Rank: G3,
S1S2
Primarily creeks and rivers and less often lakes. Originally in most of state, now extirpated from Central and Southern California.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
FE Endemic to the Colton Dunes (Delhi series soils) in NW Riverside County and SW San Bernardino County. Fine sandy soils, often wholly or partly sand dunes.

Absent
FISH
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker
FT, AFS-TH Small to medium sized streams that flow year-round. Depth from several centimeters to over 1 meter deep. Favor cool (<22°C) water and gravel, rubble, and boulder substrates.

Absent.

Gila orcutti arroyo chub SSC, FSS,
AFS-VU
Cool to warm (10-24°C) streams, most common in slow flowing or backwater areas with sand or mud substrate.

Absent.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
10 steelhead –
southern CA DPS
FE, AFS-EN Anadromous species of salmon that reproduces within southern California watersheds. Steelhead trout hatch in gravel-bottomed, fastflowing, well-oxygenated rivers and streams.

Absent.

Rhinichthys osculus
ssp. 8
Santa Ana
speckled dace

SSC, FSS,
AFS-TH
Predominantly occupy small streams of the second or third order. Prefer clear, oxygenated water with deep cover or overhead protection from vegetation or woody debris. Requires permanent flowing streams with summer water temps of 17-20°C. Usually inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffles.

Absent.

AMPHIBIANS
Spea hammondii
(also Scaphiopus
hammondii)
western
spadefoot toad
SSC, BLMS Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools which do not contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

REPTILES
803
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-12
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Actinemys
marmorata
(also Emys
marmorata)
western pond
turtle

SSC, BLMS,
FSS
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams & irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 2,000 meters in elevation. Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Anniella stebbinsi Southern
California
Legless Lizard
SSC, FSS Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Moisture is essential.

Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine and mock heather often indicate suitable habitat.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
SSC Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral. Appears to prefer microhabitats of open areas and areas with soil loose enough for easy burrowing.

Low-moderate; site
consists of open
disturbed grassland
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orange-throated
whiptail
WL, FSS Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood habitats. Prefers washes & other sandy areas with patches of brush & rocks. Perennial plants necessary for its major food-termites.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
Coastal whiptail SSC Found in a variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse foliage - chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. Generally, avoids areas of dense grass and thick shrubby growth. Requires warm and sunny areas for basking, friable soil for burrow construction and foraging, open areas for running, and cover of bushes, rocks, or both.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Coleonyx
variegatus abbottii
San Diego
banded gecko
SSC Occurs in a wide variety of sage scrub and chaparral habitats, where suitable cover exists associated with granitic outcrops and boulder fields where there is also ground debris (i.e., yucca stalks).

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake
FSS, 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.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
SSC, BLMS The species can be found in various scrublands, grasslands, coniferous and broadleaf forests, and woodlands. It can range from the coast to elevations of 2,000 meters in the Southern California mountains. It is most common in mid-elevations of the coastal mountains and valleys within open habitat that offer good opportunities for sunning.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
804
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-13
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake

SSC, FSS,
BLMS
Highly aquatic species; prefer habitat adjacent to permanent or semipermanent bodies of water. Low; site lacks suitable habitat.

BIRDS
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk WL Forest and woodland birds. These lanky hawks are a regular sight in parks, quiet neighborhoods, over fields, at backyard feeders, and even along busy streets if there are trees around.

Low to moderate; site
lacks suitable habitat
due to low amount of
trees
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird

ST, SSC,

BLMS, BCC
Freshwater marshes. Suitable breeding habitat includes cattails and bulrushes.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
Southern
California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
WL Found on moderate to steep, dry, grass-covered hillsides, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral and often occur near the edges of the denser scrub and chaparral associations. Preference is shown for tracts of California sagebrush.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Ammodramus
savannarum
Grasshopper
Sparrow
SSC Breeds in open grasslands, prairies, hayfields, and pastures, typically with some bare ground. Grasshopper Sparrows usually avoid breeding in grasslands with extensive shrub cover, but are a bit more tolerant of shrubs in migration and during the winter. Nests are domed with grasses, typically well concealed in depressions at the base of grass clumps.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat due to high
level of disturbance
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle WL, FP, BCC,
BLMS
Range-wide, golden eagles occur locally in open country (e.g., tundra, open coniferous forest, desert, barren areas), especially in hills and mountainous regions.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Artemisiospiza belli
belli
(previously
Amphispiza belli
belli)
Bell's sage
sparrow
WL, BCC The species prefers semi-open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs 1 to 2 meters high. Vertical structure, habitat patchiness, and vegetation density may be more important in habitat selection by the sage sparrow than the specific shrub species, but this sparrow is closely associated with sagebrush throughout most of its range. Amphispiza belli consists of four subspecies, three of which breed in California (the fourth subspecies occurs in Baja California). The most widespread subspecies A. b. belli resides in the coast ranges from northwestern to southern California, with a small isolated population in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat due to high
level of disturbance
805
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-14
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Asio otus long-eared owl SSC Uncommon yearlong resident except the Central Valley and Southern California deserts where it is an uncommon winter visitor.

Frequents dense, riparian and live oak thickets near meadow edges, and nearby woodland and forest habitats. Also found in dense conifer stands at higher elevations.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC, BCC,
BLMS
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.

Moderate; suitable
habitat occurs onsite
but not observed
during 2022 focused
burrowing owl surveys.

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk ST, BLMS,
BCC
Typical habitat includes open desert, grassland, or cropland containing large trees or small groves. Roosts on large trees or ground if none available. Usually found near water but also nest in arid regions. Large open areas of suitable foraging habitat with abundant and available prey base in association with suitable nesting habitat are basic requirements for successful reproduction. Due to habitat conversion, the species has shifted its foraging strategy to rely more heavily on agricultural crops. Extirpated from much of California.

Low-Moderate; site
contains cropland and
open areas for foraging
as well as large
eucalyptus and
tamarisk trees for
nesting. However,
extirpated from much
California.

Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus
wren

SSC, BCC,
FSS
Year-round resident of southern California, found in arid parts of westward-draining slopes. Obligate inhabitants of coastal sage scrub, generally below 3000 ft. Nest almost exclusively in prickly pear and coastal cholla.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckooFT, SE,

BLMS, FSS,
BCC
Woodlands, thickets, orchards, streamside groves. Breeds mostly in dense deciduous stands, including forest edges, tall thickets, dense second growth, overgrown orchards, scrubby oak woods. Often in willow groves around marshes.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail SSC, FSS,
BCC
Occur in shallow marshes with fairly short vegetation. For breeding, taller emergent vegetation like cattails does not attract Yellow Rails, but they sometimes nest nearby, where water is shallower and vegetation shorter. They often nest among sedges of the genus Carex. Yellow Rails also inhabit marshes with bulrushes of the genus Scirpus with rushes of the genus Juncus and with reedgrasses of the genus Calamagrostis.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
806
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-15
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Other plants like bald spikerush, saltmarsh spikerush, red fescue, prairie cordgrass, foxtail barley, black bent, and sweet grass are also associated with Yellow Rail nesting areas. Migrating Yellow Rails turn up in wet meadows, shallow marshes, and agricultural fields with grassy cover or heavy stubble. Wintering Yellow Rails use shallow wetlands as they do in breeding areas, typically dominated by sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and grasses. Southern California is outside of the typical range for this species.

Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FP, BLMS Inhabits riparian thickets of willow & other brushy tangles near watercourses. Nests in low, dense riparian, consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages and nests within 10 feet of ground.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow flycatcher
FE, SE The southwestern willow flycatcher is present in breeding territories by mid-May. It builds nests and lays eggs in late May and early June and fledges young in early to mid-July. Between August and September, the southwestern willow flycatcher migrates to wintering grounds in Mexico, Central America, and possibly northern South America. This species is an insectivore and forages within and above dense riparian vegetation. The breeding range of the species includes southern California. The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands including lakes and reservoirs. Habitat patches must be at least 0.25 ac in size and at least 30 feet wide.

Following modern changes to riparian communities, this subspecies still nests in native vegetation, but also uses thickets dominated by nonnative tamarisk and Russian olive, or in mixed native non-native stands.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Icteria virens yellow-breasted
chat
SSC Yellow-breasted chats in southern California are primarily found in dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well-developed understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail

ST, FP,

BLMS, BCC
Nests in Northern California in marshes and wet meadows including riparian marshes, coastal prairies, saltmarshes, and impounded wetlands. The majority are found in the tidal salt marshes of the Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.
807
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-16
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
northern San Francisco Bay region, primarily in San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Smaller populations occur in San Francisco Bay, the Outer Coast of Marin County, freshwater marshes in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, and in the Colorado River Area. All of its habitats have stable shallow water, usually just 1-2 inches deep at most. In California, American glasswort, various bulrush (Scirpus) species, and the alkali seaheath (Frankenia salina) are key plants for Black Rails. Away from tidal habitats, Black Rails nest in a variety of wet meadows, marsh edges (including along creeks and rivers), around farm ponds, and even in hayfields with standing water. Migrating birds and wintering birds select habitats with the same characteristics as breeding habitats, but some occur in dry rice fields, among other rail species, as well.

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
FT, SSC Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 835 meters in Southern California. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas & slopes. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Setophaga
petechia
(previously
Dendroica
petechia)
yellow warbler SSC, BCC Found in thickets and other disturbed or regrowing habitats, particularly along streams and wetlands. Nests in the vertical fork of a bush or small tree such as willow.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Spinus lawrencei Lawrence’s
goldfinch
BCC Open woodland or shrubland with water nearby. Builds nests in dense foliage of tree or shrubs- preferably oak, but also cypress, cedar or riparian thicket.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo FE, SE 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, or mesquite.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

MAMMALS
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat SSC, BLMS,
FSS,

WBWG (H)
Occurs in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests but is most common in open, dry habitats. Commonly roost in rock crevices, caves, and mine tunnels but also roost in the attics of houses, under the eaves of barns, in hollow trees. Roosts must protect bats from high Low-Moderate;
suitable roosting
habitat could be
present in few
808
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-17
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
temperatures. This species is very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

Eucalyptus trees on
site.

Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
SSC This species inhabits coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland ecotones, and chaparral communities. Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in association with rocks or coarse gravel. It inhabits open, sandy areas of both the Upper and Lower Sonoran life-zones of southwestern California and northern Baja California.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat including sage
scrub.

Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
FE, SSC This species is typically found in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and sandy loam soils, alluvial fans and flood plains, and along washes with nearby sage scrub, chaparral and even disturbed areas that are associated with alluvial processes. Soil texture is a primary factor in this subspecies' occurrence. Sandy loam substrates allow for the digging of simple, shallow burrows. The species is found in open grassland habitats where the sparse vegetation is mainly composed of shrubs, sagebrush, grasses and forbs.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat, lack of alluvial
habitat and high level
of disturbance
Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat
FE, ST The species is found in open grassland habitats where the sparse vegetation is mainly composed of shrubs, sagebrush, grasses and forbs.

Species avoids dense grasses (for example, non-native bromes) and are more likely to inhabit areas where the annual forbs disarticulate in the summer and leave more open areas.

Low; habitat contains
sparse grasses, but
level of disturbance is
high from mowing and
agriculture
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat

SSC, BLMS,

WBWG (H)
Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban. Suitable habitat consists of extensive open areas with abundant roost locations provided by crevices in rock outcrops and buildings.

Low-Moderate;
suitable roosting
habitat could be
present in few
Eucalyptus trees on
site.

Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow
bat
SSC,

WBWG (H)
Year-round resident of southern CA, found below 2000 ft in or near foothill or desert riparian habitats. Roosts in trees, including palm trees, in and near palm oases and riparian habitats.

Low-Moderate;
suitable roosting
habitat could be
present in few
Eucalyptus trees on
site.
809
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-18
Scientific Name Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within
the Project
Footprint
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego blacktailed jackrabbitSSC This species is found in western Riverside County in suitable grassland, sage scrub and chaparral (openings) habitat. It is also found in substantial numbers in agricultural and rural residential settings.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat due to high
level of disturbance
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
SSC Abundant in rock outcrops and rocky cliffs and slopes with moderate to dense canopies preferred. Habitats include Joshua tree, pinyon-juniper, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, and most desert habitats.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed
free-tailed bat
SSC,

WBWG (M)
Year-round resident of southern CA. Habitats used include pinyonjuniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm oasis.

Roosts in rock crevices, caverns, or buildings.

Low-Moderate;
suitable roosting
habitat could be
present in few
Eucalyptus trees on
site.

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat
SCC,
WBWG
(MH)
This species roosts in buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in trees.

They also roost in crevices in high cliffs or rock outcrops.

Low-Moderate;
suitable roosting
habitat could be
present in few
Eucalyptus trees on
site.

Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
SSC Inhabits lower elevation grassland, alluvial sage scrub, and coastal sage scrub. Extirpated from most or all of the San Fernando and San Bernardino valleys.

Low; site lacks suitable
habitat. Extirpated
from the San
Bernardino area.
810
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-19
Legend
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).

FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to § 1904 (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977) and §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals.

SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range.

ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.

SCE = state listed as candidate endangered.

SD = state delisted species.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW):

SSC = species of special concern: status applies to animals which 1) are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or 2) historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The CDFW has designated certain vertebrate species as “species of special concern” because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction.

CE= Candidate Endangered.

FP = fully protected: animal 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.

WL = watch list: these birds have been designated as “Taxa to Watch” in the California Bird Species of Special Concern report (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

The report defines “Taxa to Watch” as those that are not on the current special concern list that (1) formerly were on the 1978 (Remsen 1978) or 1992 (CDFG 1992) special concern lists and are not currently listed as state threatened and endangered; (2) have been removed (delisted) from either the state or federal threatened and endangered lists (and remain on neither), or (3) are currently designated as “fully protected” in California.

United States Forest Service (USFS):

FSS = Forest Service sensitive: those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.” United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):

BCC = USFWS bird of conservation concern: listed in the USFWS’S 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report. The report identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. While 811
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-20
all of the bird species included in the report are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM):

BLMS = BLM sensitive: those plant and animal species on BLM administered lands and that are (1) under status review by the USFWS/NMFS; or (2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing may become necessary, or (3) with typically small and widely dispersed populations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. BLM policy is to provide the same level of protection as USFWS candidate species.

American Fisheries Society: Listing of imperiled freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee.

AFS-E= Endangered
AFS-TH= Threatened
AFS-V= Vulnerable
California Rare Plant Ranks (Formerly known as CNPS Lists): the CNPS is a statewide, non-profit organization that maintains, with CDFG, an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In the spring of 2011, CNPS and CDFG officially changed the name “CNPS List” or “CNPS Ranks” to “California Rare Plant Rank” (or CPRP). This was done to reduce confusion over the fact that CNPS and CDFG jointly manage the Rare Plant Status Review Groups and the rank assignments are the product of a collaborative effort and not solely a CNPS assignment.

CRPR: 1A - California Rare Plant Rank of 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1A are presumed extirpated or extinct because they have not been seen or collected in the wild in California for many years. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1A meet the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act of the California Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Should these taxa be rediscovered, and impacts proposed to individuals or their habitat, they must be analyzed during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, or those considered to be functionally equivalent to CEQA, as they meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA Guidelines §15125 (c) and/or §15380.

CRPR: 1B - California Rare Plant Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1B meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

CRPR: 2A - California Rare Plant Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere. Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 2A are presumed extirpated because they have not been observed or documented in California for many years. This list only includes plants that are presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere in their range. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 2A meet the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act of the California Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Should these species be rediscovered, any impacts proposed to individuals or their habitat must be analyzed during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, or 812
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-21
those considered to be functionally equivalent to CEQA, as they meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA Guidelines §15125 (c) and/or §15380.

CRPR: 2B - California Rare Plant Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

CRPR: 3 – California Rare Plant Rank 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is needed. Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 3 are united by one common theme – there is a lack of necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them. Nearly all of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 3 are taxonomically problematic. Many of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 3 meet the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act of the California Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Impacts to these species or their habitat should be analyzed during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, or those considered to be functionally equivalent to CEQA, as they may meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA Guidelines §15125 (c) and/or §15380.

CRPR: 4 - California Rare Plant Rank 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Very few of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 4 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CNPS and CDFG strongly recommend that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Threat Ranks: The CNPS Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered. A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B's, 2's, 4's, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3’s. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A (presumed extinct in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.
• 0.1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) • 0.2 = fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) Sources:
• CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021) • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021). • State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW, July 2021). 813
Appendix C – Special Status Species Potential Occurrence Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project

C-22
• State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW, July 2021). • Special Animals List (CDFW, July 2021).
• Life History Accounts (CDFW).
• Sensitive List (BLM)
814
Appendix D:

Habitat conditions for
Delhi Sands Flower-loving
Fly on portions of the
Parkside Specific
Plan Area, Ontario, CA
815
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 1 Ken H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509
September 26, 2022
Attn: Mr. Sage McCleve
Vice President - Planned Communities
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
RE: Habitat conditions for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly on portions of the Parkside Specific Plan Area, Ontario, CA.

To Whom It May Concern:

The Lewis Management Corporation has requested my evaluation of habitat suitability for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis), for the 235.5-acre Parkside Specific Plan Area (herein referred as the project site) in Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The Parkside Specific Plan Area, located southwest of the intersection of Ontario Ranch Road and South Archibald Avenue and Sumner Avenue, north of Eucalyptus Avenue, and is roughly bisected by the north-south trending Cucamonga Creek Channel, dividing the site into a western 131.4-acre portion and an eastern 104.1-acre portion.

These areas are indicated on the attached maps (Figures 1 and 2). For the purpose of this habitat assessment, I have evaluated site conditions for DSF suitability in terms of site characteristics on the basis of a detailed grading system I have developed in recent years.

Summary Conclusions: The entire project site unsuitable for DSF. The eastern 104.1-acre portion of the site has extensive imported soils associated with ongoing development and has its native soils thoroughly intermixed with very fine silty Hilmar soils. The western 131.4-acre portion of the site remains in irrigated agricultural use (as has been the case for decades) with a thin, 3.45-acre waste area of ruderal vegetation on the northern edge of the site.

Qualifications: Although I possess USFWS 10(a) permitting to survey for the federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, such permitting is generally awarded to biologists only on the basis of a biologist’s experience with and/or ability to identify adult DSF, such permitting not awarded on the basis of any real understanding of DSF biology, ecology, or habitat requirements. Traditionally, USFWS considered any land (within the known range of DSF) to have been mapped with Delhi Sands soils (Woodruff 1980) as subject to formal survey for the DSF. Thus, my additional qualifications in this regard include BS, MS, degrees in entomology, 55 years general entomological experience, over thirty-five years’ experience with research and discoveries in Rhaphiomidas life history, biology, and ecology, such that I am now a leading expert in this narrow field of study.
816
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 2 Methods: On June 30, 2022, I visited the project sites in order to investigate habitat suitability for the DSF. I have reviewed soil maps covering the subject site, prepared by the California Department of Agriculture (Woodruff 1980, Knecht 1971). Aerial imagery covering the site, dating from 1985 to 2022 (Google Earth) was reviewed in order to gain an understanding of land use regimens in recent years. Other reports of habitat evaluations and DSF surveys in the vicinity of the project site have been reviewed. Photographs were taken of the site along with field notes on vegetation and soil conditions. I examined the subject site to rate its potential to support DSF, the rating based on the following scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat in my judgment:

1. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, manure, or organic debris. Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality.

3. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi Sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover.

Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates.

May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi Sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant and vegetation species composition is often indicative of low disturbance. High Quality
It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site so that conditions on a site fall within a range of qualities. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. Habitat conditions rated from Very Low Quality up to High Quality, are formally considered as representing Suitable conditions for the DSF. Use of this habitat rating system is somewhat subjective and best undertaken by a biologist who has extensive experience with Rhaphiomidas species. It must be noted that these ratings do not infer or imply actual occupancy by DSF, only relative potential to harbor the species, and relative conservation value of the land should DSF be found.

Results: Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service map (Woodruff 1980) and associated web based resources (https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/) show the site to have Delhi fine sand soils on the approximate western three quarters of the site with eastern and 817
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 3 southeastern portions of the site on Hilmar loamy very fine sands (Woodruff 1980, Figure 3). The eastern 104.1-acre portion of the site has extensive imported soils associated with ongoing development and has any of its native sandy soils thoroughly intermixed with very fine silty Hilmar soils (Figures 4 and 5). Portions of the eastern site were developed on graded for impending development at the time of my site investigation. Aerial imagery available on Google Earth, shows that the project site has been in active agricultural use from at least 1985 right up to 2020 when development of eastern portions began. The site has been surrounded by irrigated crop cultivation and dairy operations to distances of 2 to five kilometers through this period, with residential development encroaching over the recent decade. The western 131.4-acre portion of the site is currently maintained in irrigated agricultural use (Figure 6) with thin marginal strips of uncultivated waste areas supporting ruderal vegetation both the northern and southern edges of the cultivated fields (Figure 2). The northern strip includes approximately 3.45 acres, and the southern field margin is approximately 1.8 acres. The ruderal vegetation on these field margins is dominated by Kochia to the exclusion of nearly all other plants on the southern field margin, and by Kochia, Malva, and Verbesina on the northern field margin (Figures 7 and 8).

Discussion and Conclusions: Portions of the project site on the east side of the Cucamonga channel are unsuitable for DSF due to the lack of suitable soils – with areas mapped on Delhi sands altered by intermixing with exotic soils and the native very fine Hilmar soils. Irrigated agricultural use for crops and the thin adjacent waste areas with ruderal vegetation west of the Cucamonga channel are not suitable for DSF due to the lack of ecological function for the DSF – a species which relies on a native fauna of soil dwelling insects for its immature development in the soil, with the native fauna dependent on overall habitat condition (as often indicated by presence and abundance of particular plant species indicative of habitat health and ecological function). The entire project site, surrounded as it has been over decades by a densely packed matrix of irrigated croplands and dairy operations (and recently residential developments) out for some two to five kilometers in all directions would likely have no source population for DSF establishment even were habitat conditions on the site suitable. The nearest DSF occurrence of which I am aware was found just north of the Hwy 60 some 4.6 kilometers away from the site (where the DSF is likely now extinct [Osborne 2016]). The nearest extant DSF population appears 6.13 kilometers to the northeast of the project site, within the Ontario Recovery Unit. It is my understanding that the DSF has never been documented on any site southwest of the Hwy 60, Interstate 15 interchange – and area which with its long history of agricultural use, may have long ago extirpated any DSF population there. Similar findings have previously been made on similar agricultural and dairy lands of southern Ontario (Osborne 2004) and areas with active irrigated agriculture (Osborne 2016b). On the basis of my experience, conditions on the entire Parkside Specific Plan Area are currently Unsuitable for DSF.

References:

Knecht, A.A. 1971. Soil survey of western Riverside area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Osborne, K. H. 2003. Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly Habitat Assessment for the Hermosa Cemetery, Colton. Prepared for Inland Memorial Cremations and Burial. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.
818
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 4 Osborne, K. H. 2004. Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Giant Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on a 38.88-acre site in Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, October 2004.

Osborne, K. H. 2016. Second year focused survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on the 10-acre Bloch site, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, October 2016.

Osborne, K. H. 2016b. First year focused survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on portions of the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project, Riverside County, California. Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, November 2016.

Osborne, K. H., G. R. Ballmer, and T. McGill. 2003. DSF Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mary Vagle Conservation Area. Prepared for the City of Fontana. Submitted to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

University of California, Davis, Agriculture and Natural Resources, California Soil Resource Lab, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Draft Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. December 30.

Woodruff, G. A. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
__________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Ken H. Osborne
819
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 5 Figure 1. Aerial image with vicinity and habitat conditions (dairies and residential communities) surrounding the subject site (outlined in blue, highlighted yellow).

Figure 2. Aerial image (Google Earth 2020) showing the subject site (outlined in blue). Yellow shaded northern and southern margins of agricultural fields are with ruderal vegetation. 820
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 6 Figure 3. Soil types on the subject site (outlined in blue): Yellow lines separate soils: DB = Delhi sands; Hr = Hilmar loamy very fine sands.

Figure 4. Photograph of the eastern part of the study site with exotic soils, representing habitat Unsuitable for DSF.
821
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 7 Figure 5. Photograph of consolidated very fine Hilmar silty soils exposed in a cut on the eastern portion of the project site (these soils are Unsuitable for DSF).

Figure 6. Photograph of central portion of the western 131.4-acre area west of the project site, showing irrigated agricultural use.
822
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF Habitat evaluation Parkside Specific Plan, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – September 2022 8 Figure 7. Photograph of ruderal vegetation on a thin strip of land adjacent to agricultural fields on the northwestern edge of the project area. This area is Unsuitable for DSF.

Figure 8. Photograph of ruderal vegetation (dense thicket of Kochia) on a thin strip of land adjacent to agricultural fields on the southwestern edge of the project area. This area is Unsuitable for DSF.
823
Cultural Resources Assessment
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
Project
Ontario, California
PREPARED FOR:

Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, California 91786
Contact: Sage McCleve
PREPARED BY:

VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Contact: Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA
Director, Cultural Services
July 2023
824
Parkside Specific Plan Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Management Summary.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 Undertaking Information/Introduction.................................................................................... 5

1.1 Contracting Data ...................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Undertaking............................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Project Area ............................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Project Personnel...................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................... 6

2.2 Senate Bill (SB) 18 ..................................................................................................... 7

2.3 City of Ontario.......................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Human Remains....................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Natural.................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Cultural ................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Prehistory ....................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Ethnography................................................................................. 12

3.2.3 History ......................................................................................... 14

3.2.4 City of Ontario............................................................................... 15

4.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Cultural Resources Records Search.............................................................................16

4.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search ..................................................................16

4.3 Historic Aerial Review...............................................................................................16

4.4 Sacred Lands File Search/Tribal Scoping .....................................................................16

4.5 Field Survey ............................................................................................................16

4.6 Historic Property Evaluation ......................................................................................16

5.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search.............................................................................17

5.1.1 Studies......................................................................................... 17

5.1.2 Resources..................................................................................... 18

5.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search ..................................................................18

5.3 Historic Aerial Review...............................................................................................19

5.4 Sacred Lands File Search/Tribal Scoping .....................................................................19

5.5 Field Survey ............................................................................................................19

5.6 Historic Property Evaluation ......................................................................................20

6.0 Management Considerations ................................................................................................. 21

7.0 Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 22

8.0 Certification ............................................................................................................................. 24

9.0 References ............................................................................................................................... 25 825
Parkside Specific Plan Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 ii Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Cultural Resources Studies Within the Project area .......................................................................17 Table 2 Cultural Resources Sites Within One-Half Mile of the Project area ................................................ 18

LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
1 Project area USGS ............................................................................................................................ 5 2 Project area Aerial............................................................................................................................ 5

ATTACHMENTS
A Confidential Cultural Resources Records Search (SCCIC) B Paleontological Resources Records Search (SBCM)
C Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)/Tribal Scoping D Historic Property Survey Report (Urbana)
E Personnel Qualifications
826
Parkside Specific Plan Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information Sheet Parkside Specific Plan Project
Ontario, California
by
Patrick Maxon, M.A., RPA
July 2023
Submitted by:

Patrick Maxon M.A., RPA
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
T: (949) 489-2700
Submitted to:

Sage McCleve
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, California 91786
T: (909) 985-0971
USGSCorona North and Guasti, CA 7.5-Minute Quadrangles; Township 2 South; Range 7 West, Section 15 (S.B.B.M.).

Project area: 185.81 acres
Investigation: CEQA Phase I: literature review, pedestrian field survey; P-36-012533 Key Words: Assessment, SCCIC, SBCM, NAHC
827
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 1 Management Summary

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope
VCS Environmental was retained by Lewis Management Corp. to complete a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Parkside Specific Plan Amendment project in Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. This report provides a summary of past and current cultural resources investigations in support of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the Project. The previous cultural resources study (PCR 2006) completed for the Parkside Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Webb 2006) concluded no historical resources were located on the Project site. The mitigation measures developed in the EIR are carried forward in this study.

The format of this report follows Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (Office of Historic Preservation 1990).

Dates of Investigation
A cultural resources literature review was completed on July 28, 2021 by Michelle Galaz, Assistant Coordinator at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (Attachment A). A paleontological resources literature review was completed by Scott Kottkamp at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) on May 6, 2022 (Attachment B). A Sacred Lands File Search and a Tribal contacts list was requested of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 12, 2022 (Attachment C). A cultural resources survey of the Project site was conducted by Carrie Lambert on August 16, 2022. A Historic Property Survey Report was completed for the built environment on February 27, 2023. (Attachment D). This report was completed in July 2023.

Findings of Investigation
Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any known significant archaeological or historical resources or fossil localities. The area, however, is known to contain historical resources and fossils are recorded nearby.
• The SCCIC records search identified no cultural resources recorded within the Project area. Six resources have been identified within one mile of the Project site. Site P-36-012533 extends along and under Archibald Avenue, which defines the eastern boundary of the Project site. It is an alignment of historic-era construction debris laid down as an engineered roadbed. An isolated mano (P-36-033020) is recorded less than one-half mile to the south, along Carpenter Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue.
• The SCCIC records search identified no cultural resources studies completed within the Project site.

Twenty-five reports are identified within one mile of the Project site. • Cucamonga Creek Channel and its adjacent access roads are not eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation.
• The San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) reports no known fossil localities recorded within the Project site; however, fossils have been found and recorded nearby in the same sedimentary deposits that exist on the Project site. The nearest localities appear to be approximately 1.8 miles southeast.
828
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 2 Management Summary
Investigation Constraints
None.

Summary and Recommendations
Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any existing known significant archaeological or paleontological resources. Tribal Cultural Resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the Project site (P-36-033020). No fossil localities are present onsite; however, surficial alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) of late Pleistocene to Holocene age cover the site and Older Pleistocene age alluvium (Qoa) directly underlies younger surficial alluvium. The Older Alluvium could contain fossils that are recorded nearby in the same sedimentary deposits.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Parkside Specific Plan Draft EIR (Webb 2006) to mitigate potential impacts to undiscovered buried cultural and paleontological resources within the Project shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the lead agency. This program shall include, but not be limited to, the following actions:

MM Cultural 1: Should any cultural and/or archaeological resources be accidentally discovered during construction, construction activities shall be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented.

MM Cultural 2: If human remains are uncovered at any time, all activities in the area of the find shall be halted by the developer or its contractor and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately pursuant to CA Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CA PRC Section 5097.98. If the Coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall proceed as directed in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

MM-Cultural 3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Resources Survey of the project site, for approval by the City, to determine the site specific potential of finding paleontological resources within the project site. If the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is unlikely that paleontological resources will be uncovered by earth-moving activities, grading and construction activities may proceed, subject to compliance with all other mitigation measures. However, if the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is likely that paleontological resources will be uncovered during earth-moving activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the City. Following City approval of the PRMTP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRMTP. The PRMTP shall include the following measures:
a. Identification of those locations within the Project area where paleontological resources are likely to be uncovered during grading.
b. A monitoring program specifying the procedures for the monitoring of grading activities by a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee.
c. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earth-moving activities, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall temporarily divert earth-moving activities around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated for significance and, if appropriate, have been recovered; and the paleontologist or qualified designee allows earth-moving activities to proceed 829
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 3 Management Summary
through the site. If potentially significant resources are encountered, a letter of notification shall be provided in a timely manner to the City, in addition to the report (described below) that is filed at completion of grading.
d. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are uncovered by earth-moving activities, these activities shall be stopped, and a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to evaluate the significance of the fossil remains.
e. At a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee’s discretion and to reduce any construction delay, a construction worker shall assist in removing fossiliferous rock samples to an adjacent location for temporary stockpiling pending eventual transport to a laboratory facility for processing.
f. A qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall collect all significant identifiable fossil remains.

All fossil sites shall be plotted on a topographic map of the Project area. g. If the qualified paleontologist or qualified designee determines that insufficient fossil remains have been found after fifty percent of earthmoving activities have been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued.
h. Any significant fossil remains recovered in the field as a result of monitoring or by processing rock samples shall be prepared, identified, catalogued, curated, and accessioned into the fossil collections of the San Bernardino County Museum, or another museum repository complying with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines. Accompanying specimen and site data, notes, maps, and photographs also shall be archived at the repository. i. Within 6 months following completion of the above tasks, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall prepare a final report summarizing the results of the mitigation program and presenting an inventory and describing the scientific significance of any fossil remains accessioned into the museum repository. The report shall be submitted to the City Planning Department and the museum repository. The report shall comply with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines for assessing and mitigating impacts on paleontological resources.

HUMAN REMAINS
Project-related earth disturbance nearly always has the potential to unearth previously undiscovered human remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, she/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC is responsible for immediately designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The MLD shall make her/his recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance.
830
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 4 Management Summary
Disposition of Data
This report will be filed with the Lewis Management Corp. (Applicant), the City of Ontario, VCS, and at the SCCIC. All field notes and other documentation related to the study are on file at VCS. 831
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 5 Undertaking Information/Introduction

1.0 UNDERTAKING INFORMATION/INTRODUCTION

1.1 Contracting Data
VCS Environmental (VCS) was retained by Lewis Management Corp. to complete a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Parkside Specific Plan Project in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

VCS completed this Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to assist in its environmental study for the Parkside Specific Plan Project. The format of this report follows Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (Office of Historic Preservation 1990).

This report details the findings of the investigation and offers management recommendations and mitigation measures to evaluate any discoveries and to reduce the impact of the Project on resources to a less than significant level.

1.2 Undertaking
The proposed Project involves an Amendment to the Parkside Project Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Amendment (2022) modifies the permitted units allowed in the unbuilt Planning Areas of the Parkside Specific Plan boundary. Consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050 update, density in these Planning Areas (PA) can range from 11.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, in compliance with the The Ontario Plan update, PA-19 has reduced in size, thus granting more area for residential development. The Project, including PAs 1-23 and associated right-of-way (ROW) improvements, totals approximately 185.81 acres.

It is assumed for purposes of this cultural resources assessment, that the entirety of the 2022 Amendment 185.81-acre area surveyed for this assessment (including PAs 1-23) that is subject to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment will be disturbed with future implementation of uses allowed by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

1.3 Project Area
The approximately 185.81-acre Project site is located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California; the site is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, Ontario Ranch Road to the north, and Archibald Avenue to the east. An active construction zone occurs directly to the south. The Project is regionally accessible from State Route 60 (SR-60) and Archibald Avenue to the north, and from Interstate 15 (I-15) and Ontario Ranch Road to the east. The Project is located in Section 15, Township 4 South, Range 4 West on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ QuadrangleCorona North, CA. Figure 1 depicts the regional and specific location of the Project site on the USGS quadrangle. Figure 2 is an aerial map of the site. .

1.4 Project Personnel
Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA requested literature reviews from the SCCIC and SBCM, requested the SLF search from the NAHC, and authored this report. Carrie Lambert and Patrick Maxon completed the field survey on two separate days. Refer to Attachment E for qualifications. 832
Guasti
Corona North
Prado Dam Ontario
²
1:24,000
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
USGS
Topographic
Map
Project Footprint

7.5-Minute Quadrangle
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
USGS
Service Layer Credits:

Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, USGS, Intermap,
INCREMENT P, NRCan,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri
Parkside

7.5-min Quadrangle: Corona North
Section: 15
Township: T2S
Range: R7W
Meridian: San Bernardino
State: California
County: San Bernardino
Figure 1
^_
Project Location
833
²
1:6,500
0 300 600
Feet
Aerial
Map
Project Footprint (185.81 ac)
Project Site (172.91 ac)
Great Park (43.50 ac)
Offsite Improvements (12.91 ac)
Not A Part (13.00 ac)
Map Date: June 2023
Data Sources: ESRI,
Google Earth
Parkside
Figure 2
834
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 6 Regulatory Setting

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
This section contains a discussion of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards that govern cultural resources and must be adhered to both prior to and during Project implementation.

2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project would have a significant impact on one or more historical resources. According to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a “historical resource” is defined as a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (14 CCR §15064.5[a][2]); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (14 CCR §15064.5[a][3]).

Section 5024.1 of the PRC, Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR), and Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the CEQA Statutes were used as the basic guidelines for the cultural resources study. PRC 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR, which were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR §60.4), are stated below (PRC §5024.1).

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource . . . Generally, a resource shall be considered by a lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources 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; or
(b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; or (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.

Impacts that would materially impair the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to historical resources from the proposed Project are considered significant if the Project (A) demolishes or materially impairs in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, the California Register; (B) demolishes or materially impairs in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register; or (C) demolishes or materially impairs in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency (§15064.5[b][2]).

The purpose of a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment is to evaluate whether any cultural resources remain exposed on the surface of a project site or whether any cultural resources can reasonably be 835
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 7 Regulatory Setting
expected to exist in the subsurface. If resources are discovered, additional investigations would be required to evaluate the resources for CRHR eligibility and appropriate management of these resources would be required prior to Project implementation.

Broad mitigation guidelines for treating historical resources are codified in Section 15126.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Public agencies should seek to avoid significant impacts to historical resources, with preservation in place being the preferred alternative. If not feasible, a data recovery plan shall be prepared to guide subsequent excavation. Mitigation for historical resources such as buildings, bridges, and other structures that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Weeks and Grimmer 1995) will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance.

2.2 Senate Bill (SB) 18
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (California Government Code Section 65352.3) sets forth requirements for local governments to consult with Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early stage of planning for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts on, cultural places. The Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2005), identifies the following contact and notification responsibilities of local governments:
• Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC]) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe (Government Code Section 65352.3).
• Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. The referral must allow a 45- day comment period (Government Code Section 65352). Notice must be sent regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place. Such notice does not initiate a new consultation process.
• Local government must send a notice of a public hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, to tribes who have filed a written request for such notice (Government Code Section 65092).

The City of Ontario is undertaking all formal SB 18 consultation with interested tribes

2.3 City of Ontario
Ontario’s Historic Preservation Program seeks to preserve and protect the significant architectural, historical, and cultural resources, which reflect Ontario’s unique character and heritage. In 2003, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation designated the City of Ontario a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Advance Planning Division is responsible for administering the City’s Historic Preservation Program and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Planning staff, along with the Historic Preservation SubCommittee and Historic Preservation Commission, review all historic preservation applications, including proposed alterations to the exterior of historic buildings and alterations to public improvements, such as street trees, within Ontario’s historic neighborhoods (Ontario n.d.). 836
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 8 Regulatory Setting
The Historic Preservation Ordinance describes eligible historic resources as “Any property listed on the City’s List of Historical Resources prior to September 1, 2003, or after September 1, 2003, surveyed at the intensive level in accordance with the standards set forth by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and determined to meet the designation criteria for historic landmarks, as set forth in Section 9-1.2615 by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee, shall be determined to be Eligible Historical Resources. Eligible Historical Resources may include, but are not limited to, improvements, buildings, structures, signs, features, trees, or other objects of cultural, architectural, or historical significance.”

2.4 Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.

Section 5097.98 of the PRC states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours which, in turn, must identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
837
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 9 Setting

3.0 SETTING

3.1 Natural
The Project is located between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Santa Ana Mountains to the south. This area of San Bernardino County is characterized by intense agricultural uses, including numerous dairy farming operations. The general area is converting into residential and related developments; thus, it exhibits a mosaic of developed and partially developed parcels, demolished and partially demolished dairies and farms, cleared lands, and active agricultural operations.

Agricultural lands, such as dairies and row crops to the north and west, surround the Project site. The area to the south is an active residential development; portions of which are within the larger Parkside Specific Plan. The Project site supports four vegetation communities/land cover types including Disturbed/Developed, Agricultural Row Crops, Herbaceous Non-native Forbs and Grasses, Tamarix spp.

Stands and Nicotiana Glauca Stands.

The Project area is generally flat with elevations ranging from approximately 675 to 710 feet (205 to 216 meters) above mean sea level (MSL).

3.2 Cultural
Chronologies by Warren (1968), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Moratto (1984) and others are culture histories used to describe the sequence of the prehistoric periods of southern California. William Wallace (1955) developed the first comprehensive California chronologies and defines four periods for the southern coastal and nearshore inland region.

3.2.1 Prehistory
A long-standing tenet of New World archaeology has been that humans did not arrive in the western hemisphere until about 12,000 to 13,000 Years Before Present (YBP). Increasingly, researchers are arguing for earlier dates of entry, but the evidence has not been universally accepted by archaeologists. With more recent evidence, that is changing (Dillehay & Collins 1988, Dixon 1993; Adovasio and Page 2002; Johnson et al. 2002; Dillehay et al. 2015, Holen et al. 2017); the most recent being the discovery of 21,000- to 23,000-year-old human footprints preserved on an ancient lakeshore in White Sands National Park in New Mexico (Bennett et al. 2021).

Most of the generally accepted early remains indicate a very small, mobile population apparently dependent on hunting large game animals as the primary subsistence strategy. While early populations certainly used other resources, the bulk of the few traces remaining today are related to large game hunting. This situation results from the fact that hunting equipment involved many lithic tools that do not decay, while the remainder of the population’s material culture was of wood or leather, which are more subject to attrition through taphonomic (post depositional processes) factors. Therefore, lithic artifacts are the only surviving material from the Paleo-Indian Period. These consist primarily of large and extremely well-made projectile points and large but cruder tools such as scrapers and choppers. Encampments were not permanent but were probably sited near a major kill. Occupation would have lasted only until the resources of that kill were exhausted. Such an economy, using only a small fraction of the available resources, would not have supported a large population. It is probable that the Paleo-Indians lived in groups no larger than extended families and that contact with other such groups was infrequent. However, recent evidence suggests that some very early people may have had a more sedentary lifestyle and probably relied upon a variety of resources (see Adovasio and Page 2002 for a discussion of the Monte Verde, Chile site). 838
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 10 Setting
Several chronologies are generally used to describe the sequence of the later prehistoric periods of coastal southern California. William Wallace (1955) developed the first comprehensive California chronologies and defines four periods for the southern coastal region. Wallace’s synthesis is largely “descriptive and classificatory, emphasizing the content of archaeological cultures and the relationships among them” (Moratto 1984:159). Wallace relies upon the concept of cultural horizons, which are generally defined by the temporal and spatial distribution of a set of normative cultural traits, such as the distribution of a group of commonly associated artifact types. As a result, his model does not allow for much cultural variation within the same time period, nor does it provide precise chronological dates for each temporal division.

Nevertheless, although now over 65 years old, the general schema of the Wallace chronology has provided a general framework for southern California prehistory that is summarized below.

By the late 1960s, radiocarbon dates and assemblage data were more widely available for many southern California archaeological sites. Based on these new data, Warren (1968) synthesized southern California prehistory into five traditions which, unlike Wallace’s horizons, account for more regional variation within each time period. Defined as “a generic unit comprising historically related phases”, traditions were not strictly sequential temporal units (Warren 1968). That is, different traditions could co-exist in the same region or in neighboring regions at the same time.

Others have used the terms Early, Middle, and Late Holocene to characterize southern California Prehistory (Byrd & Raab 2007).

Horizon I: Early Man or Paleo Indian Period (11,000 BCE to 7,500 BCE1 ). While initially termed Early Man
Horizon (I) by Wallace (1955), this early stage of human occupation is more commonly referred to as the Paleo Indian Period (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:24). As discussed above, the precise start of this period is still a topic of considerable debate. At inland archaeological sites, the surviving material culture of this period is primarily lithic, consisting of large, extremely well made stone projectile points and tools such as scrapers and choppers. Encampments were probably temporary, located near major kills or important resource areas. The San Dieguito Tradition, defined by Warren at the stratified C.W. Harris site in San Diego County, is encompassed by this period of time (Moratto 1984:97).

Horizon II: Milling Stone Assemblages (7,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE). Encompassing a broad expanse of time, the Milling Stone Period was named for the abundant millingstone tools associated with sites of this period.

These tools, the mano and metate, were used to process small, hard seeds from plants associated with shrub-scrub vegetation communities. An annual round of seasonal migrations was likely practiced with movements coinciding with ripening vegetal resources and the periods of maximal availability of various animal resources. Along the coast, shell midden sites are common site types. Some formal burials, occasionally with associated grave goods, are also evident. This period of time is roughly equivalent to Warren’s (1968) Encinitas Tradition. Warren (1968) suggests that, as millingstones are common and projectile points are comparatively rare during this time period, hunting was less important than the gathering of vegetable resources.

Later studies (Koerper 1981; Koerper and Drover 1983) suggested that a diversity of subsistence activities, including hunting of various game animals, were practiced during this time period. At present, little is known about cultural change during this period of time in southern California. While this lack of noticeable change gives the appearance of cultural stasis, almost certainly many regional and temporal cultural shifts did occur over the course of this time period. Future research that is focused on temporal change in the Milling Stone Period would greatly benefit the current understanding of southern California prehistory. One avenue of research that could help accomplish this goal would be a synthesis of the growing amount of 1 BCE stands for “Before Common Era” and CE stands for “Common Era”. These alternative forms of “BC” and “AD”, respectively, are used throughout this document.
839
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 11 Setting
archaeological “gray” literature involving cultural resource mitigation of Milling Stone Period sites in the Los Angeles County area.

Warren (1968) defined Wallace’s Millingstone Horizon in southern California as the Encinitas Tradition, further subdivided into regional expressions that exhibited common technological development. The Topanga Complex, used to express the general association between groups of artifacts, defines this culture for the entirety of the Los Angeles Basin including Orange County.

Most recently, Sutton & Gardner (2010) have reimagined the Encinitas Tradition based on more recent archaeological work in southern California that has revealed more regional differences within the Tradition.

The term Topanga Complex (for the Los Angeles Basin) of the Encinitas Tradition is, to Sutton and Gardner, still valid; however, they suggest renaming it the Topanga Pattern to indicate similarities in cultural traits such as technology, settlement patterns, and mortuary practices. While they retained the terms proposed by Warren for the Los Angeles Basin, they proposed a distinction between coastal and inland groups based on those differences (Sutton & Gardner 2010:7).

Horizon III: Intermediate Cultures (1,000 BCE to 750 CE). The Intermediate Period is identified by a mixed strategy of plant exploitation, terrestrial hunting, and maritime subsistence strategies. Chipped stone tools (e.g., projectile points) generally decrease in size, but increase in number. Abundant bone and shell remains have been recovered from sites dating to these time periods. In coastal areas, the introduction of the circular shell fishhook and the growing abundance of fish remains in sites over the course of the period suggest a substantial increase in fishing activity during the Intermediate Period. It is also during this time period that mortar and pestle use intensified dramatically. The mano and metate continued to be in use on a reduced scale, but the greatly intensified use of the mortar and pestle signaled a shift away from a subsistence strategy based on seed resources to that of the acorn. It is probably during this time period that the acorn became the food staple of the majority of the indigenous Tribes in southern California. This subsistence strategy continued until European contact. Material culture generally became more diverse and elaborate during this time period and included steatite containers, perforated stones, bone tools, ornamental items, and asphalt adhesive.

While Warren recognizes the start of the Campbell Tradition in the Santa Barbara region at roughly the beginning of the Intermediate Period, he did not see clear evidence of cultural change farther south. As a result, the Encinitas Tradition in southern California encompasses both the Milling Stone and Intermediate Periods in Warren’s chronology (1968:2, 4). However, the later chronological schema by Koerper and Drover (1983) clearly recognizes an Intermediate Period in southern California. They suggest that Warren’s inability to recognize an intermediate cultural stage was likely due to “the lack of conclusive data in 1968” (1983:26).

Sutton (2010) reconceptualized the prehistory of the Los Angeles Basin, that encompasses Wallace’s Intermediate and Late Periods, and renaming it the Del Rey Tradition. It will be discussed below.

Horizon IV: Late Prehistoric Cultures (750 CE to 1769 CE). During the Late Prehistoric Period, exploitation of many food resources, particularly marine resources among coastal groups, continued to intensify. The material culture in the Late Prehistoric Horizon increased in complexity in terms of the abundance and diversity of artifacts being produced. The recovery and identification of a number of small projectile points during this time period likely suggests a greater utilization of the bow and arrow, which was likely introduced near the end of the Intermediate Period. Shell beads, ornaments, and other elements of material culture continue to be ornate, varied and widely distributed, the latter evidence suggestive of elaborate trade networks. Warren’s (1968) scheme divides the late prehistoric period into several regional traditions. Western Riverside County, Orange County, and the Los Angeles Basin area are considered part of the “Shoshonean” tradition, which may be related to a possible incursion of Takic speakers into these 840
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 12 Setting
areas during this period. The Late Prehistoric Period includes the first few centuries of early European contact (1542 CE to 1769 CE); this period is also known as the Protohistoric Period, as there was a low level of interaction between native Californians and Europeans prior to Portolá’s overland expedition in 1769.

In the few centuries prior to European contact, the archaeological record reveals substantial increases in the indigenous population (Wallace 1955:223). Some village sites may have contained as many as 1,500 individuals. Apparently, many of these village sites were occupied throughout the year rather than seasonally. This shift in settlement strategy was likely influenced by improved food procurement and storage technology, which enabled population growth and may have helped stimulate changes in sociopolitical organization.

Evidence is growing that prehistoric cultural change has been much more variable through time and across culture areas than previously thought. Cultural traits such as maritime economies, seafaring, complex trade networks, and year-round occupation of villages appear to have developed much earlier than previously thought. Culture change during the Late Prehistoric Period, in particular, may have been driven more by environmental and resource pressures than optimal adaptation to the environment (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Based on some of the most recent archaeological work in the Los Angeles Basin and southern Channel Islands, Sutton (2010) proposes to replace the traditional Intermediate and Late Periods/Horizons with the Del Rey Tradition. Around 3,500 years BP this Tradition replaced the Encinitas/Millingstone with a modified material cultural, a shift in settlement patterns, and new subsistence practices owing to the arrival of Takic populations from the east (Sutton 2010:3). The so-called “Shoshonean Wedge”. These were the forerunners of the Gabrielino.

It should be noted that Gabrieleno origin stories assert that the union of sky and the earth created the world and everything in it; finally producing Wewyoot or Weywot, the father of all people (McCawley 1996:
172). This occurred in situ, meaning the people were always here and the Shoshonean Wedge hypothesis is, according to the Gabrielino, false.

3.2.2 Ethnography
At the time of European contact in 1769, when Gaspar de Portolá’s expedition crossed the Los Angeles Basin, what were to be named the Gabrielino Native Americans by the Spanish occupied the area around the Project area (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996). While the term Gabrielino identifies those Native Americans who were under the control of the Spanish Mission San Gabriel Archángel, the overwhelming number of people in these areas were of the same ethnic nationality and language (Takic) group. Their territory extended from northern Orange County north to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County and eastward to the San Bernardino area.

This and the following ethnographic information relate to currently surviving native peoples still living in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. They maintain their cultural practices and customs. The current Gabrielino comprise at least five bands that are recognized Tribes by the State of California (they do not enjoy Federal recognition, however). They include the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; the Gabrieleno-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; and the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. The terms the Native Americans in southern California used to identify themselves have, for the most part, been lost; therefore, the names do not necessarily identify specific ethnic or Tribal groups. Some currently refer to themselves as Tongva, while others prefer the term Kizh. For the sake of clarity and consistency, the term Gabrielino will be used for the remainder of this report.

As described above, from an archaeological perspective, the Gabrielino arrived in the Los Angeles Basin possibly as early as 1,500 BCE as part of the so-called Shoshonean (Takic speaking) Wedge from the Great 841
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 13 Setting
Basin region. The Gabrielino gradually displaced the indigenous peoples, who were probably Hokan speakers. Large, permanent villages were established in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. Eventually, Gabrielino territory encompassed the greater Los Angeles Basin, coastal regions from Topanga Canyon in the north to perhaps as far south as Aliso Creek, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina (Bean and Smith 1978:538–540). Recent studies suggest the population may have numbered as many as 10,000 individuals at their peak in the Precontact Period.

Kroeber (1925:621) considered the Gabrielino:
. . . to have been the most advanced group south of Tehachapi, except perhaps the Chumash. They certainly were the wealthiest and most thoughtful of all the Shoshoneans of the State, and dominated these civilizations wherever contacts occurred.

SETTLEMENT
According to Bean and Smith (1978:538), the Gabrielino are one of the least known groups of California’s native inhabitants. In addition to much of the Los Angeles Basin, they occupied the offshore islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente. Gabrielino populations are difficult to reconstruct; however, at any one time, as many as 50 to 100 villages were simultaneously occupied. Like the prehistoric culture before them, the Gabrielino were a hunter/gatherer group who lived in small sedentary or semi-sedentary groups of 50 to 100 persons, termed rancherias. These rancherias were occupied by at least some of the people all of the time. Location of the encampments was determined by water availability. Houses were circular in form and constructed of sticks covered with thatch or mats. Each village had a sweat lodge as well as a sacred enclosure (Bean and Smith 1978). Although the earliest description of the Gabrielino dates back to the Cabrillo expedition of 1542, the most important and extensive accounts were those written by Father Gerónimo Boscana about 1822 and Hugo Reid in 1852. Most of the Gabrielino villages were abandoned around 1805 due to rapid decline from European-introduced diseases (Singer 1985).

The Gabrielino community of Pashiinonga is known to have been located west of the Project area. The village of Wapijanga, later known as Guapa (or Juapa Ranch), was somewhat further to the east on the banks of the Santa Ana River (Greenwood & Foster 1990:61). Both villages were situated on the Rancho del Chino. Pashiinonga was apparently the Tongva name for the Rancho; Wapijanga was named for the abundance of juniper there. The inhabitants of Pashiinonga were forcibly relocated to Mission San Gabriel (McCawley 1996:48–49). Most of the Gabrielino villages were abandoned around 1805 due to rapid decline from European-introduced diseases (Singer 1985).

SUBSISTENCE
Gabrielino subsistence relied heavily on plant foods, but was supplemented with a variety of meat, especially from marine resources. Food procurement consisted of hunting and fishing by men and gathering of plant foods and shellfish by women. Hunting technology included use of bow and arrow for deer and smaller game, throwing sticks, snares, traps, and slings. Fishing was conducted with the use of shell fishhooks, bone harpoons, and nets. Seeds were gathered with beaters and baskets. Seeds and other foods were stored in baskets. Seeds were prepared with manos and metates and/or mortars and pestles. Food was cooked in baskets coated with asphaltum, in stone pots, on steatite frying pans, and by roasting in earthen ovens (Bean and Smith 1978).

TRADE
Most trade between settlements was through reciprocity (barter), indicated by strings of Olivella shell beads used as a medium of exchange throughout southern California (Ruby 1970). Gabrielino and Juaneño 842
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 14 Setting
from the mainland probably traded trade beads, game, and plant foods in exchange for shell beads and steatite, and plant foods from the islanders. Steatite artifacts along with fish, shell money, and animal pelts were traded by the mainlander Gabrielino into the interior for seeds and deer skin. According to Bean and Saubel (1972), the Gabrielino traded with the Serrano and the Cahuilla to the east. The Gabrielino traded goods such as shell beads, dried fish, sea otter pelts, asphaltum, and steatite for goods such as salt, obsidian, deer hides, furs, and acorns. There is evidence of trade between the Arizona Hohokam and the Gabrielino, probably with the Mojave people as middleman (Koerper in Mason et al. 1997). Glycymeris shell bracelets, ceramics, and blankets may have been exchanged for Pacific shells and shell beads (Koerper in Mason et al. 1997).

RELIGION
Aside from shamanistic curing rituals, principal religious activity is related to the Chinigchinich cult that emphasized correct behavior as promulgated by a mythical figure, Chinigchinich. The Chinigchinich religion developed in Gabrielino territory and spread southeast to the Juaneño/Luiseño, Cupeño, and Ipai. It is a cult that is tied into an older creation myth. Chinigchinich is said to be the giver of laws and the punisher for those who are disobedient. Shamans were given responsibilities to oversee the cult. It was an extensive system of polar opposites (duality) that are united under higher principals (unity) (Applegate 1979).

Male-Female dualism found in the creation myth is also present in the origin myth (Applegate 1979).

Chinigchinich cult ceremonies included boys’ puberty ceremonies using toloache, a drug made from Jimson Weed (Datura stramonium). During the vision quest, a personal protector or totemic animal was acquired.

Such totems could be bear, coyote, crow, or rattlesnake. Other ceremonies were to obtain vengeance on enemies; to express thanks for victory; and to commemorate the dead. The focus of the ceremonies was a circular sacred enclosure (Wankesh) found in each village. The emphasis on male rites of passage and war may be a response to the increasing population and resultant competition for territory and access to resources. Or it may be a response to the arrival of the Spanish since the Chinigchinich religion seems to be of later (not prehistoric) origin.

Both inhumation (burial in a grave) and cremation were practiced by the Gabrielino. During cremations, the goods and hut of the deceased were often buried with him. Annual mourning ceremonies were held in the late summer for all who had died during the previous year. Clothes of the deceased and an image of the deceased were often burned at this time. Eagles were sacrificed for recently deceased chiefs (Applegate 1979).

3.2.3 History
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).

The Spanish Period is represented by exploration of the region; establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, and San Luis Rey; and the introduction of livestock, agricultural goods, and European architecture and construction techniques. The Old Spanish Trail, used by explorers, missionaries, and traders extended through the area to the south of the Project area.

The Mexican Period (1821-1848) began with Mexican independence from Spain and continued until the end of the Mexican-American War. The Secularization Act resulted in the transfer, through land grants (called ranchos) of large mission tracts to politically prominent individuals.

The American Period (1848-present) began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and in 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef 843
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 15 Setting
during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure.

3.2.4 City of Ontario
Ontario was founded in September of 1882 by George and William B. Chaffey. The City was named after the home of the Chaffey brothers, Ontario, Canada. The Chaffey’s established three principles for the “Model Colony” that had social and economic implications including a mutual water company concept, a grand thoroughfare, and an agricultural college for general education. Seven-mile-long Euclid Avenue, with twin roadways and a central mall, was the stately backbone of the Colony. Its long easy incline, from the Southern Pacific railway tracks on the south to the tableland at the mouth of San Antonio Canyon on the north, was ideal for the development of gravity irrigation. In 1903, Ontario had been declared the “Model Colony” as an Act of Congress of the United States for its innovation, principals, and establishment of a new standard for urban living. The Model Colony stood as a prominent example of a successful irrigation project for many years (City of Ontario n.d.). In 1999, the City of Ontario annexed 8,200 acres of the Colony and named their portion the New Model Colony (NMC).
844
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 16 Methods

4.0 METHODS

4.1 Cultural Resources Records Search
A literature review of documents on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton was completed by SCCIC Assistant Coordinator, Michelle Galz on July 28, 2022 (Attachment A).

The SCCIC is the designated branch of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and houses records concerning archaeological and historic resources in San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The records search provided data on known archaeological and built environment resources as well as previous studies within one mile of the Project area. Data sources consulted at the SCCIC included archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (DOE), and the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The HPDF contains listings for the CRHR and/or NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI).

The review consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Corona North and Guasti

7.5-minute quadrangles to evaluate the Project area for any cultural resources recorded on or cultural resources studies conducted in the Project area and within a one-mile radius.

4.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
A paleontological resources records search was received from the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) on May 6, 2022, via email (Attachment B).

4.3 Historic Aerial Review
An examination was made of the historic aerial photographs at HistoricAerials.com (NETRONLINE n.d.) by Patrick Maxon on January 23, 2023.

4.4 Sacred Lands File Search/Tribal Scoping
A NAHC Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal contacts list was requested by Diana Ayala at the City of Ontario.

A response was received from the NAHC and letters were sent to Tribes on March 9, 2022 (Attachment C).

The City of Ontario conducted all formal SB 18 consultation.

4.5 Field Survey
A cultural resources survey of the Project site was conducted by Senior Archaeologist, Carrie Lambert on August 16, 2022. The Project site wasinspected visually, walking transects in a north-south direction where possible.

4.6 Historic Property Evaluation
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana 2023) completed a historic property evaluation of the Cucamonga Creek Channel and asphalt road on either side of the channel in February 2023. 845
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 17 Results

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search

5.1.1 Studies
The SCCIC completed a CHRIS records search on July 28, 2022 (Attachment A) which concluded that there have been 25 cultural resources studies completed within one mile of the center of the Project site. None of these studies included any of the Project site. However, three (SB-03012, SB-05358, and SB-05976) extend along the border of the Specific Plan. Table 1 lists the studies.

Table 1
Cultural Resources Studies Within One Mile of the Project Site Report Number Author/Year Type of Study/Size/Resources
SB-01499 Foster & Greenwood/1985 Survey; 0 resources
SB-02623 Taskiran & Greeley/1992 Survey; 0 resources
SB-03012* review
map
Owen/1995 Survey; 13 linear miles; 5 resources
SB-03687 Love & Tang/1997 Survey/Evaluation; 19 linear miles; 0 resources SB-03874 Dahdul/2002 Survey; 80 acres; 0 resources
SB-04171 Maxwell/2001 Survey/Evaluation; 52.3 acres; 0 resources SB-04379 Dice/2004 Survey/Evaluation; 266.7 acres; 0 resources SB-04506 Dahdul/2001 Survey; 3 linear miles; 0 resources SB-04507 Tibbett/2004 Survey; 140 acres; 0 resources
SB-05280 Pollock/2006 Survey; 3.5 linear miles; 0 resources SB-05358* Sider/1976 Cucamonga Creek Publication; 0 resources SB-05700 Hogan & Tang/2006 Monitoring; 1 resource (12533) SB-05701 Wetherbee & Siren/2006 Survey; 0 resources
SB-05702 Encarnacion & Ballester/2007 Survey; 0 resources SB-05976* Wetherbee et al./2007 Survey; 1 resource (12533) SB-06095 Applied Earthworks/2009 Survey; 5 resources
SB-06818 Tang et al./2010 Survey; 0 resources
SB-07149 Billat/2012 Unknown
SB-07655 Hoffman et al./2012 Survey; 0 resources
SB-07756 Tang/2014 Survey; 10 linear miles; 0 resources SB-07901 Strudwick/2014 Survey; 189.1 acres; 0 resources SB-07956 Dolittle/2007 Survey; 0 resources
SB-07968 Holm & Holson/2011 Survey; 3 resources
SB-07977 Panich et al./2010 Survey; 2 resources
SB-08188 Kraft & Smith/2014 Survey; 2 resources
*Located on Specific Plan Boundary.
846
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 18 Results
SB-03012 is a survey and impact assessment for the Cajon/EPTC Pipeline project. The 13-mile linear survey includes a segment of Edison Avenue that defines the northern boundary of the Parkside Specific Plan parcel. The five resources identified are not within or near the Project site.

SB-05358 is a 1976 publication by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District titled “Cucamonga Creek 1776-1976 After 200 Years.” It is a description of the construction of the Cucamonga Creek flood control channel and the history of Cucamonga Creek. The channel extends through and roughly bisects the Project site. The channel was recently evaluated for its historic significance (see below).

SB-05976 is a survey and assessment of the New Model Colony East Backbone infrastructure in the City of Ontario. The one resource associated with the project (P-36-012533) is an alignment of historic-era construction debris laid down as an engineered roadbed under the current alignment of Archibald Avenue which defines the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area.

5.1.2 Resources
The records search also concluded that six cultural resources have been recorded within one mile of the Project area. None of the resources are recorded within the Project site. Native American Tribes may have additional historical resource information which could be elucidated during Tribal consultation efforts.

Table 2
Cultural Resources Within One Mile of the Project Site
Site Number
(P-36-)
Recorder/Year
(most recent) Description
012195 Daly/2005 SA CHUL Farms; 12 structures
012533 Porter/2005 Historic-era building debris road bed, Archibald Avenue 025440 Tinsley-Becker/2010 Edison Chino-Mira Loma No. 1 Transmission Line 025597 Dice/2013 The Lee Dairy complex
026051 Goodwin/2019 Devers-San Bernardino 220kV; SCE Hayfield-Chino 220kV Transmission Line
033020 Tropes/2019 Mano isolate
Although no resources are designated as located within the Specific Plan boundary, P-36-012533 described above, extends along and under Archibald Avenue, which defines the eastern boundary of the Project site.

It is an alignment of historic-era construction debris laid down as an engineered roadbed. An isolated mano (36-033020) is recorded less than one-half mile to the south, along Carpenter Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue.

In addition, the Cucamonga Creek channel was not identified by the Eastern Information Center as a resource because it had not yet been recorded on DPR 523 Series site records. It has recently been recorded and evaluated as not eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP (Urbana 2023).

5.2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
The SBCM completed a Paleontology collections records search on May 6, 2022 (Attachment B) that determined no paleontological resources are recorded on the Project site; however, fossils have been found and recorded in the same sedimentary deposits within five miles. The nearest localities appear to be approximately 1.8 miles southeast (Kottkamp 2022).
847
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 19 Results
The geological mapping of the region demonstrates that nearly the entire Project site is covered by recent, surficial alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) of late Pleistocene to Holocene age. Older Pleistocene age alluvium (Qoa) directly underlies younger surficial alluvium throughout the Inland Empire area. Pleistocene sediments in this area generally lie five to 15 feet below recent Holocene surface sediments. However, the depth of the recent sediments can be highly variable, ranging from a thin veneer of soil to greater than 24 feet deep (Kottkamp 2022).

Species found in the vicinity include Bison (Bison), Horse (Equus), Camel (Camelops), Mastodon (Mammut), Mammoth (Mammuthus), and others.

No paleontological resources were noted during the pedestrian site survey. However, because it is likely that over excavation will be required for much of the site to remove manure and other organic materials for soil stability purposes, the deeper geologic units have the potential to contain significant fossil resources. Therefore, if Project grading reaches depths of 5 feet or more, the effects of the Project on paleontological resources may be significant and a mitigation program would be developed.

5.3 Historic Aerial Review
Internet research on the Project, and an examination of historical aerial photographs at HistoricAerials.com (NETRONLINE n.d.) on January 23, 2023, revealed that the Project area has remained mostly undeveloped until the recent construction on a community in the southeast quadrant of the Specific Plan area. There is, however, some development evident near the center of the Specific Plan, immediately west of the creek channel, by 1938. By 1959, that area had expanded significantly to include roads, trees, and additional development of structures. A large pond was installed north of the development and west of the channel before 1998. The pond is no longer present in 2009. Except for remnant trees, cacti (see photo on cover page), and miscellaneous refuse, the structures have been removed from the area.

5.4 Sacred Lands File Search/Tribal Scoping
Diana Ayala of the City of Ontario initiated the NAHC request for tribal contacts pursuant to SB 18 in January 2022 and received the list in March 2022. Consultation letters to Tribes were sent on March 9, 2022. Only the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, represented by Chairman Andy Salas, requested consultation. The City works with Mr. Salas on a regular basis. The consultation resulted in the Kizh providing a list of mitigation measures to monitor project grading. The Applicant has executed a monitoring services agreement with the Kizh. Mitigation measure details are provided in Attachment C.

5.5 Field Survey
An archaeological survey of the Project site east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel was conducted by VCS Director of Cultural Services, Patrick Maxon M.A., RPA on June 3, 2022. This portion of the Project site was mostly cleared, with fill material evident, especially in the extreme eastern end of the site. Ground visibility approached 100 percent. The area closest to the creek channel had recently been planted in corn, but the corn was harvested prior to the survey, leaving stubble. Visibility here was approximately 75 percent. The entire east side was surveyed in 10-15 meter spaced transects across the entire area in a north-south fashion. No cultural resources were noted.

The west side of the Project site was surveyed by Senior Archaeologist, Carrie Lambert on August 16, 2022.

Here corn had more recently been harvested leaving approximately 60 percent visibility. Ms. Lambert walked 10-15 meter spaced transects across this western portion of the Project site in a north-south and east-west fashion. No cultural resources were noted.
848
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 20 Results

5.6 Historic Property Evaluation
Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP; Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA; and Alexandrea Baker, MCP of Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana) completed a historic property evaluation of the Cucamonga Creek Channel and asphalt road on either side of the channel (Attachment D). “The purpose of the HPSR is to identify whether the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access road observed within the project APE meet the definition of an historic property pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and [a historical resource per] the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to evaluate the effects the proposed project may have on those historic properties.” Urbana’s work included a desktop and field survey of the APE, contextual and property-specific research, and reporting.

Urbana documented and evaluated the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access roads within the APE and concluded that these resources “are not eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation“(Urbana 2023).
849
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 21 Management Considerations

6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form, which includes, for Section V, Cultural Resources, questions relating to cultural resources, including the historic built environment, historic and prehistoric archaeology, and human remains. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been used as significance criteria. Accordingly, a project may result in a significant environmental impact if:
• The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.
• The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
• The Project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines Section VII, Geology and Soils, includes an additional question related to the presence or absence of fossil resources on the Project site. Accordingly, a project may result in a significant environmental impact if:
• The Project directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines Section XVII, Tribal Cultural Resources, includes additional questions related to the presence or absence of Tribal Cultural Resources on the Project site. They are as follows:
• Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The purpose of the cultural resources assessment is to identify any historical resources or tribal cultural resources that may exist on the Project site, to determine the sensitivity of the Project site for the presence of buried archaeological and/or paleontological material, and to make recommendations to the lead agency regarding the development of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the Project on resources to a less than significant level.

Public Resources Code (PRC) §21084.1-2 and PRC §5020.1(q) of CEQA states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change (i.e., demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired) in the significance of a “historical resource” or a “tribal cultural resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 850
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 22 Findings and Recommendations

7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any existing known significant archaeological or paleontological resources. Tribal Cultural Resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the Project site (P-36-033020). No fossil localities are present onsite; however, surficial alluvial fan deposits (Qyf) of late Pleistocene to Holocene age cover the site and Older Pleistocene age alluvium (Qoa) directly underlies younger surficial alluvium. The Older Alluvium could contain fossils that are recorded nearby in the same sedimentary deposits.

MM-Cultural 3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Resources Survey of the project site, for approval by the City, to determine the site specific potential of finding paleontological resources within the project site. If the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is unlikely that paleontological resources will be uncovered by earth-moving activities, grading and construction activities may proceed, subject to compliance with all other mitigation measures. However, if the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is likely that paleontological resources will be uncovered during earth-moving activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the City. Following City approval of the PRMTP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRMTP. The PRMTP shall include the following measures:
a. Identification of those locations within the Project area where paleontological resources are likely to be uncovered during grading.
b. A monitoring program specifying the procedures for the monitoring of grading activities by a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee.
c. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earth-moving activities, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall temporarily divert earth-moving activities around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated for significance and, if appropriate, have been recovered; and the paleontologist or qualified designee allows earth-moving activities to proceed through the site. If potentially significant resources are encountered, a letter of notification shall be provided in a timely manner to the City, in addition to the report (described below) that is filed at completion of grading.
851
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 23 Findings and Recommendations
d. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are uncovered by earth-moving activities, these activities shall be stopped, and a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to evaluate the significance of the fossil remains.
e. At a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee’s discretion and to reduce any construction delay, a construction worker shall assist in removing fossiliferous rock samples to an adjacent location for temporary stockpiling pending eventual transport to a laboratory facility for processing.
f. A qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall collect all significant identifiable fossil remains.

HUMAN REMAINS
Project-related earth disturbance nearly always has the potential to unearth previously undiscovered human remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, she/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC is responsible for immediately designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. The MLD shall make her/his recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance.
852
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 24 Certification

8.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached figures 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.

DATE: July 2023 SIGNED:
_________________________________
Patrick Maxon., RPA
Director, Cultural Resources
853
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 25 References

9.0 REFERENCES
Adovasio, J. M. and J. Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New York.

Applegate, R.B.
1979 The Black, the Red, and the White: Duality and Unity in the Luiseño Cosmos. The Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 1(1):71-88.

Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh (from the Earth): Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning.

Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, pp. 538-549. Robert F. Heizer, volume editor. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

Bennett, Matthew, D. Bustos, J. Pigati, K. Springer, T. Urban, V. Holliday, S. Reynolds, M. Budka, J. Honke, A. Hudson, B. Fenerty, C. Connelly, P. Martinez, V Santucci, and D. Odess 2021 Evidence of Humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum. In Science Vol. 373, Issue 6562, pp. 1528-1531.

Byrd, B. and M. Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity (pp. 215–227). Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, Editors. Altamira Press, a Division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Chartkoff, J. L. and K. K. Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Dillehay, Tom and Michael Collins
1988 Early Cultural Evidence from Monte Verde in Chile. In, Nature, Vol. 332, Issue 6160, pp. 150-152.

Dillehay, Tom, Carlos Ocampo, José Saavedra, Andre Sawakuchi, Rodrigo Vega, Mario Pino, Michael Collins, Linda Scott Cummings, Iván Arregui, Ximena Villagran, Gelvam Hartmann, Mauricio Mella, Andrea González, George Dix
2015 New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile. PLOS ONE 10(12): e0145471.

Dixon, E. J.
1993 Quest for the Origins of the First Americans. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Galvin and Associates
2004 The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area, Ontario Planning Department.
854
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 26 References
Greenwood, R. and J. Foster
1990 Context and Evaluation of Historic Sites in the Prado Basin. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California.

Holen, S., T. Demere, et al.
2017 A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA. 00 Month 2017, Volume 000, Nature.

Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium (D. R. Brown, K.

C. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney, Eds.). Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Koerper, H. C.
1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, Riverside.

Koerper, H. C. and C. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.

Kottkamp, Scott
2022 Paleontology Records Review for proposed site of Parkside SP Project, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications Inc., New York.

Mason, R.D., W.H. Bonner, S.J. Bouscaren, L. Carbone, R.O. Gibson, L.P. mug, M.L. Peterson, and V. Popper 1997 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of Data Recovery at CA-ORA-225. Prepared for Sverdrup Corporation, Irvine, California and Transportation Corridor Agencies, Santa Ana, California. Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine, California.

McCawley, W.
1996 The First Angelenos. The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning and Novato, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, Florida.

NETRONLINE
n.d. Historic Aerials: http://www.historicaerials.com/
Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format.

Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California. 855
Parkside SP Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
March 2023 27 References
Office of Planning and Research
2005 State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento.

Ontario, City of
n.d. Historic Preservation Program: Historic Preservation | City of Ontario, California (ontarioca.gov) Ruby, J.
1970 Culture Contact Between Aboriginal Southern California and the Southwest. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Singer, Clay A.
1985 Archaeological Testing at Hunter Ranch, Malibu Creek State Park, Los Angeles County, California.

On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Sutton, Mark
2010 The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44 (2): 1-64.

Sutton, Mark and Jill Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42 (4): 1-64.

Urbana Preservation and Planning
2023 Historic Property Survey Report, Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail, Ontario, CA. On file, VCS Environmental, San Juan Capistrano.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology Il.

Warren, Claude. N.
1968 Cultural Traditions and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):
1–14.

Webb Associates (Albert A. Webb and Associates)
2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Parkside Specific Plan, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, State Clearinghouse Number 2004011008. City of Ontario, California.

Weeks, K. and Grimmer, A.
1995 The Secretary of The Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services (Washington, D.C.).
856

CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT A

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH (SCCIC)
857
South Central Coastal Information Center
California State University, Fullerton
Department of Anthropology MH-426
800 North State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92834-6846
657.278.5395 / FAX 657.278.5542
[email protected]
California Historical Resources Information System
Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties
_____________________________________________________________________________ 7/28/2021 Records Search File No.: 22578.8722

Patrick Maxon
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano CA 92675
Re: Records Search Results Parkside Cucamonga Creek Project The South Central Coastal Information Center received your records search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Corona North and Guasti, CA USGS 7.5’ quadrangles. Due to the COVID-19 emergency, we have implemented new records search protocols, which limits the deliverables available to you at this time. WE ARE ONLY PROVIDING DATA THAT IS ALREADY DIGITAL AT THIS TIME.

Please see the attached document on COVID-19 Emergency Protocols for what data is available and for future instructions on how to submit a records search request during the course of this crisis. If your selections on your data request form are in conflict with this document, we reserve the right to default to emergency protocols and provide you with what we stated on this document. You may receive more than you asked for or less than you wanted. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a 1-mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ shape files ☐ hand-drawn maps Resources within project area: 0 None
Resources within 1-mile radius: 6 SEE ATTACHED MAP
Reports within project area: 0 None
Reports within 1-mile radius: 25 SEE ATTACHED MAP
Resource Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database (spreadsheet): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database (spreadsheet): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed 858
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) 2019: ☒ available online; please go to https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338
Archaeo Determinations of Eligibility 2012: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/39.98/-100.02 Ethnographic Information: ☒ not available at SCCIC
Historical Literature: ☒ not available at SCCIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☒ not available at SCCIC
Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: (see below) ☒ not available at SCCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System, Michelle Galaz
Assistant Coordinator
859
Enclosures:
(X) Covid-19 Emergency Protocols for San Bernardino County Records Searches – 2 pages (X) Custom Maps – 2 pages
(X) Resource Database Printout (details) – 7 pages
(X) Report Database Printout (details) – 26 pages
(X) Resource Record Copies – (all) – 123 pages
(X) Invoice # 22578.8722
860
Emergency Protocols for San Bernardino County Records Searches These instructions are for qualified consultants with a valid Access and Use Agreement.

WE ARE ONLY PROVIDING DATA THAT IS ALREADY DIGITAL AT THIS TIME. WE ARE NOT PROVIDING SHAPEFILE DATA FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; YOU WILL ONLY RECEIVE A CUSTOM DIGITAL MAP.

We can only provide you information that is already in digital format; therefore, your record search may or may not be complete. Some records are only available in paper formats and so may not be available at this time. This also means that there may be data missing from the database bibliographies; locations of resource and report boundaries may be missing or mis-mapped on our digital maps; and that no pdf of a resource or report is available or may be incomplete.

As for the GIS mapped data, bibliographic databases, and pdfs of records and reports; not all the data in our digital archive for San Bernardino County was processed by SCCIC, therefore, we cannot vouch for its accuracy. Accuracy checking and back-filling of missing information is an on-going process under normal working conditions and cannot be conducted under the emergency protocols.

This is an extraordinary and unprecedented situation. Your options will be limited so that we can help as many of you as possible in the shortest amount of time. You may not get everything you want and/or you may get more than you want. We appreciate your patience and resilience.

Please send in your request via email using the data request form along with the associated shape files and pdf map of the project area. If you have multiple SBCO jobs for processing, you may not get them all back at the same time. Use this data request form:
http://web.sonoma.edu/nwic/docs/CHRISDataRequestForm.pdf Please make your selections on the data request form based on the following instructions.

1. Keep your search radius as tight as possible, but we understand if you have a requirement. The wider the search radius, the higher the cost. You are welcome to request a Project area only search, but please make it clear on the request form that that is what you are seeking. 861

2. You will get custom maps of resource locations for the project area and the radius that you choose. We will only be providing maps of report locations for the project area and up to a ¼- mile radius. If you need bibliographic information for more than ¼-mile radius – you will be charged for all report map features within your selected search radius. You can opt out of having us create custom maps but you still pay for the map features in the project area or the selected search radius if you want the associated bibliographic information or pdfs of resources or reports.

3. You can request copies of site records and reports if they are digitally available.

4. You will also get the bibliographies (List, Details, Spreadsheet) that you choose for resources and reports. Because the bibliographic database is not yet complete, you will only get what is available at the time of your records search.

5. If you request more than what we are offering here, we may provide it if it is available or we reserve the right to default to these instructions. If you want copies of resources and reports that are not available digitally at the time of the search, you can send us a separate request for processing when we are allowed to return to the office. Fees will apply.

6. You will need to search the OHP BERD yourself for your project area and your search radius.

This replaces the old OHP HPD. It is available online at the OHP website.

7. You can go online to find historic maps, so we are not providing them at this time.

8. Your packet will be sent to you electronically via Dropbox. We use 7-zip to password protect the files so you will need both on your computers. We email you the password. If you can’t use Dropbox for some reason, then you will need to provide us with your Fed ex account number and we will ship you a disc with the results. As a last resort, we will ship on a disc via the USPS.

You may be billed for our shipping and handling costs.

9. We will be billing you at the staff rate of $150 per hour and you will be charged for all resources and reports according to the “custom map charges”, even if you don’t get a custom or handdrawn map. You will also be billed 0.15 per pdf page, as usual. Quad fees will apply if your research includes more than 2 quads. The fee structure for custom maps was designed to mimic the cost of doing the search by hand so the fees are comparable.

10. A copy of the digital fee structure is available on the Office of Historic Preservation website under the CHRIS tab. If the digital fee structure is new to you or you don’t understand it; please ask questions before we process your request, not after. Thank you. 862
Report Detail: SB-01499
Citation information
Year: 1985
Title: CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW: CALIFORNIA PORTION, PROPOSED PACIFIC TEXAS PIPELINE PROJECT Affliliation: GREENWOOD AND ASSOCIATES
No. pages: 185
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 4/24/2017 ikott
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; LITERATURE REVIEW; CULTURAL HISTORY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; NO RESOURCES]
Date User
Address:

Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): FOSTER, JOHN M. and ROBERTA S. GREENWOOD
Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Fontana, Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam, Redlands, San Bernardino South Inventory size:

No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: SB-01499
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 0
PLSS:

Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1061499
Voided 85-7.4A-B

Page 1 of 26 ends

Ontario City CouncilDecember 19, 2023

Ontario City Council
December 19, 2023