Ontario City Council
November 4, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
equipment where feasible to reduce the release of
undesirable emissions.

MM Air 2: During all construction activities, construction contractors shall encourage rideshare and transit
programs for project construction personnel to reduce
automobile emissions.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 3: During all grading and site disturbance
activities, construction contractors shall water active grading sites at least twice a day, and clean construction equipment in the morning and/or evening to reduce
particulate emissions and fugitive dust.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 4: During all construction activities, construction contractors shall, as necessary, wash truck tires leaving the site to reduce the amount of particulate matter
transferred to paved streets as required by SCAQMD
Rule 403.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 5: During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep on and off site streets
(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water) if
visible soil is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares, as determined by the City Engineer to
reduce the amount of particulate matter on public
streets.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 6: During all construction activities, construction contractors shall limit traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less to reduce fugitive dust.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 7: During grading and all site disturbances
activities, construction contractors shall suspend all
grading operations during first and second stage smog
alerts to reduce fugitive dust and combustion related
emissions.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 8: During grading and all site disturbances
activities, construction contractors shall suspend all
grading operations when wind speeds (including
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour to reduce fugitive dust.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 9: During all construction activities, the
construction contractors shall maintain construction
Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.
2545
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
equipment engines by keeping them tuned according to
manufacturers’ specifications.

MM Air 10: During construction, mobile construction
equipment will be properly maintained at an off-site
location, which includes proper tuning and timing of
engines. Equipment maintenance records and
equipment design specification data sheets shall be kept on-site during construction.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 11: During construction, all contractors will be advised to prohibit all vehicles from idling in excess of five minutes, both on-site and off-site.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 12: Configure construction parking to minimize
traffic interference.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 13: Contractors shall use high-pressure-lowvolume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50% or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency, where feasible.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 14: Use architectural coatings with a VOC
content lower than required under Rule 1113, where
feasible.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 15: Construct/build with materials that do not
require painting, where feasible.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 16: Use pre-painted construction materials,
where feasible.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 17: The contractor shall provide truck drivers
with materials showing where sensitive receptors, such
as schools, are located, and when congestion can be
expected so that the drivers can avoid these routes
and/or times of day.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 18: Require construction equipment that meet
or exceed Tier 2 standards; use emulsified diesel fuels; and equip construction equipment with oxidation
catalysts, particulate traps, or other verified/certified retrofit technologies, etc., where feasible.

Not Applicable. Project construction would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds; further mitigation is not required.

MM Air 19: Local transit agencies shall be contacted to determine bus routing in the project area that can
accommodate bus stops at the project access points and
the project shall provide bus passenger benches and
shelters at these project access points.

Not Applicable. The Project area is already served by
transit services; Omnitrans Route 87 serves the area,
with a stop located at the corner of Eucalyptus Avenue
and Hamner Avenue, less than 1,000 feet from the
Project site. The Project would provide internal
2546
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
driveways and pedestrian paths that connect to the
existing street and sidewalk network surrounding the
Project site.

Biological Resources
MM Bio 1: There is a possibility of owl colonization
within the project site prior to site grading. To ensure that no direct loss of individuals occurs, mitigation will be carried prior to initiation of on-site grading activities for each development phase. A pre-construction survey
for resident burrowing owls shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist. The survey shall be conducted 30
days prior to construction activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30
days after the preconstruction survey, the site shall be resurveyed for owls.

If owls are determined to be present within the
construction footprint, they shall 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 shall 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 shall 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
Applicable. The Project would conduct a preconstruction survey for resident burrowing owls, and follow the protocol set forth in this measure.
2547
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
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 owl’s nest during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the
young.

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: 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 Community and impacts to existing open space”,
according to the City of Ontario Development Impacts
Fee Calculation Report and the Settlement and general
Release Agreement.

Applicable. The Project would pay City of Ontario open
space mitigation fees.

MM Bio 3: Construction and/or removal of windrow
trees will occur outside of the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If tree removal activities must
occur during the breeding season, the mitigation
measure in MM Bio 4 shall be implemented.

Not Applicable. The Project site has been graded, no
windrow trees exist on the site.

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) of potentially occurring
sensitive bird species, a pre-construction field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine Not Applicable. The Project site has been graded, no
windrow trees exist of the site.
2548
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
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 pre-construction 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.

Cultural Resources
MM Cul 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 a historical or unique archaeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, then procedures outlined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines shall be followed. Additionally, Ontario’s
Local CEQA Guidelines provide that curation may be an
appropriate mitigation measure for an artifact that must be removed during project excavation or testing. (Local CEQA Guidelines, Section 5.13.)
Applicable. Although the site-specific Cultural
Resources Study determined that no further
archaeological study or mitigation would be required,
this measure is directed at resources that may be
inadvertantly found during Project construction. The
Project would implement this measure.

MM Cul 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.

Applicable. The Project would be required to comply
with all existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, which would
provide protection for any human remains discovered
during development activities.

Energy
None. (This topic was added to the CEQA Guidelines
after the certification of the Esperanza Specific Plan
DEIR.)
-
2549
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Geology and Soils
MM Geo 1: To address potential wind erosion effects,
prior to construction, all grading and other construction activities will apply for and adhere to the permit given by the City of Ontario and enforced by the Building
Official found in Title 6, Chapter 12, sections 6-12.01 – 6-12.07. The permit lasts for one (1) year, therefore, all construction lasting for a period of more than one
calendar year from the date of issue will reapply for the permit and pay the current annual fee. At a minimum,
the permit prohibits the disturbance of the surface or
subsurface of more than one (1) acre of land without
meeting permit requirements which can include such
things as the application of soil stabilizers and
limitations on grading activities during wind events.

Applicable. The Project would obtain all required
permits prior to any construction activities.

MM Geo 2: To assure soils suitable for construction, site materials should be tested for organics and excavated to a minimum of 4 feet where soils generally become
denser. Actual removal depths will be determined
during grading when subsurface conditions are exposed.

GeoSoils, Inc (10/12/01) also recommends that soft and
compressible colluvial and alluvial soils be removed
prior to grading.

Per recommendations of GeoSoils Inc. in the Updated
Geotechnical Study, partial to complete removal of
manure will be required, as soils with high
concentrations of cow manure are generally unsuitable
to be used as fill. On-site soils may be used for fill if the organic matter content is diluted to less than 2 percent using underlying soils with no more than 1 percent of
the organic content being from manure.

Not Applicable. As part of the site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation, soil samples throughout the site were tested to determine their organic content. The majority of
samples ranged from approximately 1.2 percent to 2.7
percent, indicating relatively low organics. Two areas of the site indicated higher levels (8.8 percent and 4.8
percent). The Geotechnical Evaluation provides
remedial grading recommendations in those areas with
a higher percentage of organic content. Mandatory
compliance with the recommendations of the sitespecific Geotechnical Evaluation negates the need for this mitigation measure.

MM Geo 3: Any soil to be used as fill, whether currently on-site or imported, should be approved by the soil
engineer or his/her representative prior to their
placement. To properly assess and address the
suitability of on-site soils to be used as fill, a
geotechnical evaluation shall be performed by a
qualified professional prior to the approval of the
Tentative Tract map or site plan for a given phase of
Not Applicable. On-site soils were evaluated for
suitability as part of the site-specific Geotechnical
Evaluation. Mandatory compliance with the
recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical
Evaluation negates the need for this mitigation measure. 2550
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
development. This evaluation will include an analysis of the organic matter content of soils on the site. If the organic matter content of the soils is greater than 2
percent when mixed with subsurface soils and/or
imported fill, then manure will be removed from the site prior to grading operations.

MM Geo 4: To reduce the risk of ground cracking,
manure shall be removed from the site, such that the
organic matter content of on-site soils shall not exceed 2 percent (a 2 percent total organic content is allowed, of which no more than 1 percent can be manure) in the
building foundation areas when mixed with underlying
clean soils and imported fill. On-site soils that will be used as on-site fill that contain organic contents will be diluted by mixing with underlying clean soils. The mix
will be continuously sampled and tested during grading
so that the fill does not exceed the recommended limit
of 2 per cent of organics per total volume of fill. The soil engineer will observe the placement of all fill and take sufficient tests to monitor the moisture content and the uniformity and degree of compaction obtained.

Not Applicable. As part of the site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation, soil samples throughout the site were tested to determine their organic content. The majority of
samples ranged from approximately 1.2 percent to 2.7
percent, indicating relatively low organics. Two areas of the site indicated higher levels (8.8 percent and 4.8
percent). The Geotechnical Evaluation provides
remedial grading recommendations in those areas with
a higher percentage of organic content. Mandatory
compliance with the recommendations of the sitespecific Geotechnical Evaluation negates the need for this mitigation measure.

MM Cul 3: Since grading plans have not yet been
prepared to establish how deep excavation is needed,
prior to the issuance of grading permits, and as
recommended in the Phase I Cultural and
Paleontological Resources Assessment for this site, a
qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Resources Survey of the project site, 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 site 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.

Not Applicable. Consistent with the recommendations
of the Project-specific Paleontological Resources
Assessment, new Mitigation Measure 7-1 shall be
implemented in place of MM Cul 3. Measure 7-1
requires the preparation of a PRIMP, as well as full-time paleontological monitoring starting at a depth of four
feet below the surface during earth disturbance
activities.
2551
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
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 earthmoving 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.
d. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving 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 site.
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
2552
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
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.

Greenhouse Gases
None. (This topic was added to the CEQA Guidelines
after the certification of the Esperanza Specific Plan
DEIR.)
-
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM Haz 1: To the extent not previously prepared and to
properly assess and address potential hazardous
materials, including pesticide residues, within the
specific plan area, a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) shall be performed by a registered
environmental assessor (REA) prior to the approval of a site plan for a given phase of development. Pursuant to mitigation measure HM-1 in the GPA for the NMC Final
EIR, page 5.10-6, the Phase I ESA shall, at a minimum,
meet with the requirements and current standards of
investigation established by the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM Standard E 1527). If
potential hazardous materials or conditions are
identified in the Phase I report, an in-depth evaluation shall be performed including surficial sampling and
chemical analysis within agricultural areas or where soil staining was observed. The Phase I ESA shall be provided to the City of Ontario and shall be included in any CEQA analysis prepared in connection with the consideration
of the discretionary approval for development. All
identified hazardous materials will be removed or
remedial action taken prior to grading operations
Not Applicable. A Phase I ESA has been prepared for the Project site to evaluate the potential for on-site hazards.

The Phase I determined that that no evidence of
contamination or hazardous waste is located on the
Project site. No further investigation was
recommended.
2553
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
pursuant to the recommendations of the Phase I ESA
and appropriate City, county, state and federal laws and guidelines under the oversight of the San Bernardino
County Fire Department’s Hazardous materials Division
Site Remediation/Local Oversight Program.

MM Haz 2: Much of the site located south of Eucalyptus
Avenue has been covered by undocumented fill and
used as a dump site by the local community. To address
possible contamination and remove appropriately all
previously identified and unidentified types of
hazardous waste on site, clearing and grading activities in this area shall be monitored by a Registered
Environmental Assessor (REA), or other professional
personnel approved by the City, and any known items of
concern and those not previously identified which are
uncovered can be removed or remediated per the
appropriate regulations (see MM Haz 3 and 4, below).

Not Applicable. See above.

MM Haz 3: If, while performing any excavation as part of project construction, material that is believed to be
hazardous waste is discovered, as defined in Section
25117 of the California Health & Safety Code, the
developer shall contact the City of Ontario Fire
Department and the County of San Bernardino Fire
Department Hazardous Materials Division. Excavation
shall be stopped or redirected to another location on
site until the material has been tested and the presence of hazardous waste has been confirmed. If no hazardous
waste is present, excavation may continue. If hazardous waste is determined to be present, the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control shall be
contacted and the material shall be removed and
disposed of pursuant to applicable provisions of
California law under the oversight of the San Bernardino County Fire Department’s Hazardous materials Division
Site Remediation/Local Oversight Program. Fill material imported from other areas shall be tested prior to
placement on-site to assess that it is suitable to be used as fill, including testing for unsafe levels of hazardous materials.

Not Applicable. See above.
2554
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
MM Haz 4: The biologically active materials, such as
animal carcasses, should be removed and legally
disposed of prior to any clearing and grubbing.

Not Applicable. The recent site visit conducted as part of the Phase I verified that no biologically active
materials, such as animal carcasses, are present on the Project site.

MM Haz 5: All on-site buildings and remaining
foundations that were built before 1979 shall be tested for the presence of asbestos, mercury and lead-based
paint and those materials shall be removed according to the applicable regulations and guidelines established by the South Coast Management District, Department of
Toxic Substances Control, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. As per HM-2 in the
GPA for the NMC Final EIR, page 5.10-6, the developer
shall submit documentation to the City Building
Department that asbestos, mercury and lead-based
paint are not present on their site, or that the above
removal process has occurred.

Not Applicable. The recent site visit conducted as part of the Phase I verified that no buildings or foundations are present on the Project site.

MM Haz 6: All septic tanks on the project site will be
properly removed and disposed of, per City and State
procedures, prior to site development. All water wells
on the project site will be properly destroyed in
accordance with MM Util 8 in Section 12, Utilities, of this EIR. These activities will occur subject to City of Ontario Building Safety requirements.

Not Applicable. No septic tanks were identified onsite
as part of the Phase I ESA conducted for the Project.

MM Haz 7: Pursuant to the City of Ontario Municipal
Code Section 9-2.0435 (L), “a methane gas assessment
shall be prepared by a licensed professional with
expertise in soil gas assessments for subdivisions
proposed on former dairies, poultry ranches, hog
ranches, livestock feed operations and similar facilities to determine the presence of methane gas within the
project boundary. The methane gas assessment shall
identify monitoring and mitigation strategies and
approaches. All mitigation measures/plans and
specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the
City of Ontario.”
Such an “assessment” may take two steps. A preliminary
assessment should be done prior to grading to
determine exactly where dairies have existed in the past Not Applicable. Due to the extensive soil stockpiling,
grading, and blending that has taken place on the
Project site as part of surrounding development, the
Phase I determined that no further investigation is
warranted.
2555
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
so that the post grading assessment/mitigation
measures can be focused on the portions of the specific plan area that have included dairies. The second step
may include actual testing of graded pads no sooner
than 30 days after construction to determine if methane is detected above 5,000 ppm. If so, the types of
mitigation measures described below, or those
approved by the City, shall be implemented in the areas exceeding this limit. If the developer chooses not to do the post grading assessment, then mitigation as
described below shall be required on all lots within
former dairy areas of the specific plan.

Mitigation shall include: 1) install a minimum 60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane barrier (or
equivalent), 2) install a subslab passive venting system, 3) seal utility or other penetrations through the
membrane, 4) seal utility conduits where they enter a
structure, and 4) construct a utility “dam” at the point where a “dry” utility trench approaches a structure.

Liquid Boot, applied to a minimum 60-mil dry thickness
per manufacturer’s recommendations, may be
substituted for the HDPE membrane.

Hydrology and Water Quality
MM Hydro 1: In order to ensure that construction
activities associated with the Subarea 25 Esperanza
Specific Plan will not cause a violation of any water
quality standard or waste discharge requirements and to assure no substantial degradation of water quality
occurs, and to implement the intent of mitigation
measures included in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the NMC, the development within the project
area shall comply with all applicable provisions of the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities (Order No. 99-08-DWQ, or most recent version) during all
phases of construction. A copy of evidence of the receipt of a Waste Discharge Identification Number from the
State Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be filed with the City Engineer along with a copy of the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) maps and
Not Applicable. The Esperanza Specific Plan EIR stated
that measures Hydro 1 through 7 should be
implemented, unless the Regional Water Quality
Treatment Facility is complete and operational prior to project construction (p. III-7-21).

The Regional Water Quality Facility referenced in the
Esperanza SP DEIR (Regional Plant No. 5) was
constructed in 2004. As such, these measures are not
applicable to the Project.
2556
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
BMPs. According to Title 6, Chapter 6, Section 6 of the City’s code, the City Engineer shall review and approve the provisions of the SWPPP prior to implementation of
any SWPPP provision or starting any construction
activity.

MM Hydro 2: In order to ensure the development within
the Subarea 25 Esperanza Specific Plan will not cause or contribute to violations of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements, and to assure no
substantial degradation of water quality occurs, the
project will complete a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) pursuant to the MS4 permit (Order No. 2002-
0012) under which the City of Ontario is a permitee. The City adopted storm water management code Section 6-

6.101 et seq. to implement the provisions of the permit.

The project shall incorporate Site Design BMPs and
Source Control BMPs, and potentially Treatment Control
BMPs. The following table (III-7-F) provides guidelines and possible BMPs that may be incorporated into the
project design (on construction drawings) and/or
project specifications. Prior to acceptance of the WQMP, the City shall assure that maintenance responsibilities of BMPs approved for the project are identified and
enforceable. Table III-7-G correlates each BMP to the
pollutants of concern which it removes/reduces and/or
meets the design objectives for the BMP.

Not Applicable. See above.

MM Hydro 5: In order to conserve water and to mitigate
for any potential unforeseen adverse impacts to a
reduction in ground water recharge, the following
measure has been recommended by the Chino Basin
Water Conservation District: Landscaping within
individual development projects will retain and
percolate both applied irrigation water and storm water in vegetated areas of parking lots and other areas,
where appropriate; “depressed” planted areas bordered
by shrubbery screens will be implemented rather than
“mounded” grass and shrubbery planted screens.

Neighborhood Edges and parks will be irrigated via
reclaimed water.

Not Applicable. See above.
2557
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
MM Hydro 3: In order to reduce the risk of flooding and to implement mitigation measures included in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the NMC prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the development within
the Specific Plan, a final drainage plan for the proposed project shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Engineer and shall construct all necessary storm drain facilities internal to the development which are
designed to connect with the City’s master planned
drainage system.

Not Applicable. See above.

MM Hydro 4: In order to reduce the risk of flooding and to implement mitigation measures included in the GPA
for the NMC Final EIR, prior to issuance of grading
permits, the City of Ontario shall coordinate with the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District to ensure
that the project meets County Flood Control
requirements such as those established for
encroachment permits.

Not Applicable. See above.

MM Hydro 6: In order to reduce pollutants in post
construction run-off and to implement mitigation
measures included in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the NMC, the individual project owners and
operators (e.g., homeowner associations, parks
department, etc.) shall ensure that all pest control,
herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part of maintenance of project features are handled, stored, applied and disposed of by those conducting
facility maintenance in a manner consistent with all
applicable federal, state and local regulations. According to Title 6, Chapter 6, Section 6 of the City’s code, the City Engineer shall monitor and enforce this provision.

Not Applicable. See above.

MM Hydro: 7: To mitigate possible temporary run-off
from undeveloped properties located north (upgradient) of all or a portion of the project site, drainage from properties north of the developed portions of the
project site shall be conveyed to appropriate drainage
facilities, as approved by the City Engineer.

Not Applicable. See above.

Mineral Resources
None. -
2558
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Noise
MM Noi 1: The construction activities of the proposed
project shall comply with the City of Ontario Noise
Ordinance that prohibits construction activities on
Sundays, federal holidays, and other days between the
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Applicable. The Project would comply with the
permitted hours of construction, as set forth in the City of Ontario Noise Ordinance.

MM Noi 2: Construction staging areas shall not be
located within 150 feet of existing sensitive receptors and construction equipment shall be fitted with
properly operating and maintained mufflers.

Applicable. The Project would ensure that construction
staging areas would not be located within 150 feet of
existing sensitive receptors. Additionally, all
construction equipment would be fitted with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.

MM Noi 3: A sound wall at least 6 feet high shall be
constructed along perimeter lots adjacent to
Hamner/Milliken Avenue. If any residential structures
are two stories high, then windows facing
Hamner/Milliken Avenue would need upgraded soundrated glazing products and the rooms would need supplemental ventilation. A final acoustical report shall be submitted to address wall heights based on final
grading and site plans. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building
permit issuance to ensure that City standards are
maintained (45 dB CNEL interior and 65 dB CNEL
exterior).

Not Applicable. The Project site is not located adjacent to Hamner/Milliken Avenue.

MM Noi 4: A sound wall at least 6 feet high shall be
constructed along perimeter lots adjacent to Bellegrave Avenue. If any residential structures are two stories
high, then windows facing Bellegrave Avenue would
need upgraded sound-rated glazing products and the
rooms would need supplemental ventilation. A final
acoustical report shall be submitted to address wall
heights based on final grading and site plans. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department prior to building permit issuance to ensure
that City standards are maintained (45 dB CNEL interior and 65 dB CNEL exterior).

Not Applicable. The Project site is not located adjacent to Bellegrave Avenue.

MM Noi 5: A sound wall at least 6 feet high shall be
constructed along perimeter lots adjacent to Merrill
Avenue. If any residential structures are two stories
high, then windows facing Merrill Avenue would need
Not Applicable. The Project site is not located adjacent to Merrill Avenue.
2559
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
upgraded sound-rated glazing products and the rooms
would need supplemental ventilation. A final acoustical report shall be submitted to address wall heights based on final grading and site plans. The report shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department
prior to building permit issuance to ensure that City
standards are maintained (45 dB CNEL interior and 65
dB CNEL exterior).

MM Noi 6: Architectural plans shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for an acoustical plan check prior to the issuance of building permits to assure that second story windows are upgraded for sound reduction and proper
ventilation systems are incorporated. Plans shall include a final acoustical report to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit
issuance to ensure that City standards are maintained
(45 dB CNEL interior and 65 dB CNEL exterior).

Applicable. The Project Noise Impact Analysis verifies
that City standards would be maintained. The Project
would submit architectural plans in this regard.

Public Services
MM Serv 1: To reduce fire hazards, wood-shingled and
shake-shingled roofs are prohibited.

Not Applicable. No wood-shingled or shake-shingled
roofs are proposed.

MM Serv 2: To reduce fire hazards, adequate fire
hydrant locations and water main sizes shall meet
standards established by the City of Ontario Fire
Department and reviewed and implemented by the
Engineering Department.

Applicable. All fire water lines and hydrants would meet the standards established by the City of Ontario Fire
Department, and reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Department.

MM Serv 3: To reduce fire hazards, adequate fire flow
pressure shall be provided for residential areas and nonresidential projects in accordance with currently adopted City standards.

Applicable. Adequate fire flow pressure would be
provided in accordance with currently adopted City
standards.

MM Serv 4: To reduce fire hazards, adequate water
supply shall be provided as approved by the Fire
Department prior to the framing stages of construction.

Applicable. Adequate water supply would be provided,
as approved by the Fire Department.

MM Serv 5: To reduce fire hazards, houses located on
cul-de-sacs longer than 300 feet shall be constructed
with residential fire sprinklers.

Applicable. Residential fire sprinklers would be
installed, as appropriate.

MM Serv 6: To reduce fire hazards, access roadways
designed in accordance with Fire Department standards
to within 150’ of all structures, shall be provided prior to the framing stages of construction. This access is to be Applicable. Fire access roadways would be provided
prior to framing, and remain unobstructed throughout
construction.
2560
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
maintained in an unobstructed manner throughout
construction.

MM Serv 7: To mitigate for potential impacts to library, police, and fire departments, the developer shall pay
library, police, and fire service development impacts
fees.

Applicable. The Project Applicant would pay all required development impact fees.

MM Serv 8: To reduce the risks associated with
inadequate fire service, one of the two fire stations
described above (Edison/Archibald or Edison/Mill
Creek) shall be in operation prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Esperanza
Specific Plan area. The details of where and how this will be accomplished shall be included in the development
agreement between the City and the developer.

Potential impacts associated with the construction of
these stations is evaluated in the EIRs prepared for their respective GPA Subareas.

Not Applicable. This measure has already been
implemented.

MM Serv 9: The developer shall pay school fees or
otherwise meet project obligations to schools, as
approved by Mountain View School and Chaffey Joint
Union High School Districts.

Applicable. The Project would pay all required school
fees, as directed by the City.

MM Serv 10: To adequately address the need for
recreation within the City, park development impact
fees, Quimby fees, and/or developed parkland shall be
provided to the City commensurate with the
requirements of the General Plan equivalent to 24 acres total. The park fees shall be paid on a pro-rata share as building permits are issued in accordance with the
negotiated DIF agreement. (Note: parkland shall be
provided to the City commensurate with the
requirements of the General Plan equivalent to 25 acres, if 46 additional homes are built in lieu of the school.) Applicable. The Project would pay all required park fees, as directed by the City.

MM Serv 11: To ensure adequate parks are built
commensurate with development, the pocket park
located within Planning Area 9 of the Esperanza Specific Plan shall be constructed no later than the issuance of certificates of occupancy for 50 percent of the units
within Planning Areas 8, 9 and 10 combined; the pocket
park located within Planning Area 7 of the Esperanza
Specific Plan shall be constructed no later than the
Not Applicable. The Project site is located within
Planning Area 11, which is not reflected in this measure. 2561
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
issuance of certificates of occupancy for 50 percent of the units within Planning Areas 6 and 7 combined; the
pocket park located within Planning Area 5 of the
Esperanza Specific Plan shall be constructed no later
than the issuance of certificates of occupancy for 50
percent of the units within Planning Areas 4b and 5
combined; the 5-acre Neighborhood Park shall be
constructed no later than the issue of the certificates of occupancy for 50 percent of the units within Planning
Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4a combined.

Recreation
See MM Serv 10 and 11, above. See MM Serv 10 and 11, above.

Transportation/Traffic
MM Trans 1: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Creek Avenue/Merrill Avenue with the following
geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through
and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through
and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane. (These developments to be constructed
by development located west of the Specific Plan.)
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 2: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Project Street (W)/Merrill Avenue with the following
geometrics:

Northbound: One shared left, through and right-turn
lane.

Southbound: One shared left, through and right-turn
lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 3: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Project Street (E)/Merrill Avenue with the following
geometrics:

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2562
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Northbound: One shared left, through and right-turn
lane.

Southbound: One shared left, through and right-turn
lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

MM Trans 4: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Milliken/Hamner Avenue/Merrill Avenue with the
following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. One shared through and
right-turn lane.

Westbound: (This leg of the intersection to be
constructed by development in Riverside County.) One
left-turn lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 5: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Creek Avenue/Bellegrave Avenue with the following
geometrics (Note: Riverside County encroachment
permits required for some improvements.):

Northbound: One shared left, through and right-turn
lane.

Southbound: One shared left, through and right-turn
lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. One shared through
and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 6: Modify the intersection of
Milliken/Hamner Avenue/Bellegrave Avenue to include
the following geometrics (Note: Riverside County
encroachment permits required for some
improvements.):

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2563
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes.

One shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One
right-turn lane.

MM Trans 7: Sight distance at the project entrance
roadways should be reviewed with respect to the City of Ontario Standard Drawing for Sight Distance in effect at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

Applicable. All proposed sight distances would be
reviewed and approved by the City, consistent with
current City of Ontario Standard Drawing for Sight
Distance.

MM Trans 8: Signing/striping should be implemented in
conjunction with detailed construction plans for the
project site.

Applicable. All proposed signing and striping plans
would be reviewed and approved by the City in
conjunction with construction plans.

MM Trans 9: Intersection, median opening and traffic
signal spacing shall be in accordance with the City of
Ontario New Model Colony Access Guidelines.

Applicable. All roadway improvements would be
implemented consistent with applicable City standards.

MM Trans 10: Construction of full width of internal
roadways and part width of the following roadways shall comply with City of Ontario Standards:
• Construct partial width improvements on the
easterly side of Mill Creek Avenue at its ultimate
cross-section as a collector street (88’ right-of-way)
adjacent to project boundary line.
• Construct partial width improvements on the
westerly of Milliken/Hamner Avenue at its ultimate
cross-section as a divided arterial parkway 1 (140’ or
more right-of-way) adjacent to project boundary
line.
• Construct partial width improvements on the
northerly side of Bellegrave Avenue at its ultimate crosssection as a standard arterial (100’ right-of-way) adjacent to project boundary line.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 11: In order to provide alternative modes of
transportation and reduce vehicle trips, the City shall work with Omnitrans to develop additional routes and
service to the project area.

Not Applicable. Measure Trans 11 applies to City staff, not a specific project within the Specific Plan area.

MM Trans 12: In order to ease traffic flow, reduce trips, and implement GPA for the NMC Final EIR mitigation
measures, the City shall establish a Transportation
Not Applicable. Measure Trans 12 applies to City staff, not a specific project within the Specific Plan area.
2564
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
System Management (TSM) Program with the goal of
reducing vehicle trips to and from land uses within the City, and particularly focusing on the reduction of drivealone vehicle use in work commuting.

MM Trans 13: The project will participate in the cost of off-site improvements through fairshare payment of the
Development Impact fee as established by the City of
Ontario. These fees should be collected and utilized by the City to construct the improvements necessary to
maintain the required level of service.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 14: Reconfigure Milliken Avenue/SR 60 WB
Ramps to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left turn lanes and two through lanes.

Southbound: Two through lanes and one right-turn lane.

Eastbound: NA
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One shared left and
through lane. One right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 15: Reconfigure Milliken Avenue/SR 60 EB
Ramps to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left turn lane. Three through lanes.

Eastbound: One shared left and through lane. One
through lane. Two right-turn lanes.

Westbound: NA
Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 16: Reconfigure Milliken/Hamner
Avenue/Riverside Avenue intersection to include the
following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

One shared right-turn and through lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 17: Reconfigure Milliken/Hamner
Avenue/Chino Avenue intersection to include the
following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes.

One shared right-turn and through lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2565
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

MM Trans 18: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Schaefer Avenue and configure with
the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One shared through and left-turn lane. One
through lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One shared through and left-turn lane. One
through lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 19: Reconfigure Archibald Avenue/Edison
Avenue intersection to include the following
geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

Two shared right-turn/shared lanes.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 20: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Schaefer Avenue/Edison Avenue and reconfigure with
the following geometrics:

Northbound: NA
Southbound: One shared left and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane.

Westbound: One through lane. One shared through and
right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 21: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Haven Avenue/Edison Avenue and reconfigure with the
following geometrics:

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2566
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Northbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

MM Trans 22: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Merrill Avenue and reconfigure with
the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

One shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 23: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Haven Avenue/Merrill Avenue and reconfigure with the
following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 24: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Creek (Cleveland) Avenue/Merrill Avenue and
reconfigure with the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2567
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

MM Trans 25: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Project Street West/Merrill Avenue and reconfigure
with the following geometrics:

Northbound: One shared through and left-turn lane.

One through lane. One shared through and right-turn
lane.

Southbound: One shared through and left-turn lane.

One through lane. One shared through and right-turn
lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane
Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 26: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Project Street East/Merrill Avenue and reconfigure with the following geometrics:

Northbound: One shared through and left-turn lane.

One through lane. One shared through and right-turn
lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 27: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Milliken/Hamner Avenue/Merrill Avenue and
reconfigure with the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

One shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2568
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
MM Trans 28: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Creek (Cleveland) Avenue/Bellegrave Avenue and
reconfigure with the following geometrics:

Northbound: One shared left-turn lane. One through
lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: One shared through and left-turn lane.

One through lane. One shared through and right-turn
lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One
shared through and right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 29: Reconfigure Milliken/Hamner
Avenue/Bellegrave Avenue intersection to include the
following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

One shared through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One shared through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One
right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One
right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 30: Reconfigure Hamner Avenue/Limonite
Avenue intersection to include the following
geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

One right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Trans 31: Reconfigure I-15/Limonite SB Ramps to
include the following geometrics:

Northbound: NA
Southbound: One left-turn lane. One shared left,
through, and right-turn lane. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.
2569
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
Westbound: Three through lanes. One free-right-turn
lane.

MM Trans 32: Reconfigure I-15/Limonite NB Ramps to
include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. One shared left,
through, and right-turn lane. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: NA.

Eastbound: Three through lanes. One free right-turn
lane.

Westbound: Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

Tribal Cultural Resources
None. -
Utilities & Service Systems
MM Util 1: To provide adequate water and sewer
service, all water and sewer pipelines within and
adjacent to the project boundaries, as required and
conditioned to serve the associated Tentative Tract
Maps, shall be constructed by the developer based on
the NMC Infrastructure Master Plans phased by tract
and to the satisfaction of the City.

Applicable. All water and sewer improvements
proposed by the Project would be reviewed and
approved by the City, and implemented pursuant to
current City infrastructure plans.

MM Util 2: To ensure that adequate sewer facilities are in place to serve the proposed project, the Archibald
trunk sewer line off-site connection to the IEUA Kimbal Avenue interceptor shall be completed by IEUA and
operational prior to the City of Ontario’s issuance of the first certificates of occupancy. The applicant shall
participate on a fair share basis in the development of the necessary sewer facilities.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Util 3: To ensure adequate water service to the
project, off-site water lines, tanks, interconnectors and other facilities required in the Water Master Plan for the Francis loop to provide water to the site shall be
constructed by the City and be in place and operational prior to the City of Ontario’s issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in the development of these off-site facilities.

Applicable. The Project would pay fair share fees
towards the improvements listed in the Esperanza SP
DEIR and requisite City Development Impact Fees, as
determined by the City.

MM Util 4: To mitigate for possible conflicts with existing utilities, prior to obtaining grading permit(s), the project proponent shall coordinate with the applicable natural
Applicable. The Project Applicant would coordinate
with affected purveyers to prevent potential impacts to existing utility facilities.
2570
Esperanza PA-11 SPA Project
April 24, 2025

Esperanza Measure Project Applicability
gas, electrical, and telephone utility providers for the project site to ensure that all existing underground and overhead lines are not damaged during project
construction.

MM Util 5: To reduce the quantity of energy used and to conserve water resources, the project developer and
City of Ontario should work to include sustainable
systems for use of water and energy within the project
design. One source of assistance in this regard is
Southern California Gas Company Commercial/
Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-2000, which
should be contacted at the time of development of the
commercial center located within the project.

Applicable. As detailed within the Project Description, the Project includes design features aimed at reducing
energy and water usage, such as water efficient fixtures and irrigation methods, and a lack of natural gas
infrastructure.

MM Util 6: To reduce the need for potable water and
ensure adequate water supply, the project applicant
shall plan and construct a dual pipe system to supply
recycled water when available in the future (GP Policy

5.1.4). An Engineer’s Report approved by the City and
the Department of Health Services is required prior to
the use of recycled water.

Not Applicable. This measure has already been
implemented/completed.

MM Util 7: To reduce risks associated with improperly
abandoned wells and the potential need for temporary
water supplies, all existing agricultural wells on the
project site will be destroyed/ abandoned per the
California Department of Water Resources Standards
(Bulletin 74-90). A well use/destruction plan and
schedule for all existing agricultural wells on the project site shall be prepared and submitted for approval, prior to the issuance of grading permits. This plan shall also include a temporary water supply plan, as applicable, in order to avoid potential significant temporary impacts
resulting from the disruption of current water supply
through the abandonment of on-site wells. Construction
of any temporary pipes or facilities needed to provide
water to the existing uses which are to temporarily
remain shall be installed per City requirements at the
developer’s expense.

Not Applicable. No wells are located on the Project site.

Wildfire
None. (This topic was added to the CEQA Guidelines
after the certification of the Esperanza Specific Plan
DEIR.)
-
2571
DATE: March 28, 2025
TO: Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Shannon Wong
JOB NO: 15662-05 AQ Assessment

ESPERANZA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT OPERATIONAL AIR

QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Dave Waters,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following Operational Air Quality Assessment for Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment development (referred to as Project) to support the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), which is located on the northeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Amherst Avenue in the City of Ontario. The purpose of this work effort is to determine if the Project would result in new or substantially different Air Quality Impacts than those considered and addressed in the Esperanza Specific Plan (Approved Specific Plan) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR (SEIR).

As required by The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) (TOP Final SEIR) mitigation measure MM AQ-1, Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Operational Air Quality Assessment for the Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Project), located in the City of Ontario.

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the proposed Project is to consist of 161 multifamily residential dwelling units (with a density of approximately 16.1 dwelling units per net acre). The Project is located within the Esperanza Specific Plan. The original Specific Plan that was approved contemplated a 736-student elementary school within Planning Area 11. The land use will be updated from “School” to “MDR Medium Density Residential” consistent with the adjacent land use to the northeast. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in a single phase by the year 2029.

Exhibit 1 shows the preliminary site plan. For comparison purposes, Exhibit 2 shows the currently approved land use plan identifying Planning Area 11 with a school.
2572
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
2573
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment
EXHIBIT 2: CURRENTLY APPROVED LAND USE PLAN
2574
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment

PROJECT AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS

METHODOLOGY
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released CalEEMod 2022 in May 2022. CalEEMod periodically releases updates, as such the latest version available at the time of this report has been utilized in this analysis. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source 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 (March 2023) 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

AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Sensitive Receptor Locations
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.
2575
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment
Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 2 under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report. • Receptor R1 represents the future residential area east of Clifton Avenue, approximately 83 feet east of the Project site.
• Receptor R2 represents the future residential area northeast of the intersection of Clifton Avenue and Chatham Street, approximately 106 feet northeast of the Project site. • Receptor R3 represents the future park north of Chatham Street, approximately 66 feet north of the Project site.
• Receptor R4 represents the existing residence at 4508 S. Amherst Avenue, approximately 130 feet west of the Project site.
• Receptor R5 represents the 095 E. Amigos Privado, approximately 202 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R6 represents the existing residence at 4556 S. Afton Privado, approximately 143 feet southeast of the Project site.

For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Southwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station (SRA 33). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look-up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project’s disturbed acreage.

The acres disturbed is based on the equipment list and days in the site preparation and grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. The equipment-specific grading rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod (4). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies equipment-specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Scrapers; therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in the site preparation and grading phase was replaced with Crawler Tractors. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) since this phase represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. The Project’s construction activities could disturb a maximum of approximately 3.5 acres per day for site preparation and 4 acres per day for grading activities. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As such, Table 2 presents thresholds for localized construction and operational emissions.
2576
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment
TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Site Preparation 220 lbs/day 1,713 lbs/day 11 lbs/day 7 lbs/day Grading 237 lbs/day 1,873 lbs/day 13 lbs/day 8 lbs/day
1 Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 7.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The analysis uses the methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (6). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-41. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is represented by the existing residence at 4516 Amherst Ave, approximately 52 feet (16 meters) west of the Project site.

As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. It should be noted that the existing residence is located at a closer distance than the nearest industrial/commercial use. As such, the same receptor will be used for evaluation of localized NOx and CO.

It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the 1 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.” 2577
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment
nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (18).” As such, for evaluation of localized PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO, a 25-meter distance will be used.

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Table 3 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of Project construction activities. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represent the maximum localized emissions that would occur. As shown in Table 3, emissions resulting from construction activity will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized constructionsource emissions and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 3: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.61 31.01 7.43 4.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 29.95 28.67 4.05 2.25
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,873 13 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
2578
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The proposed Project is to consist of 161 multifamily residential dwelling units (with a density of approximately 16.1 dwelling units per net acre) on 10.5 acres.

The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized in Table 4. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

TABLE 4: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2026 3.91 34.72 32.28 0.06 23.78 12.01
2027 1.60 11.05 22.06 0.03 2.01 0.73
2028 1.54 10.51 21.48 0.03 1.98 0.69
Winter
2026 3.47 30.11 29.79 0.06 11.93 5.11
2027 1.57 11.12 20.15 0.03 2.01 0.73
2028 1.51 10.54 19.70 0.03 1.98 0.69
2029 29.05 17.78 32.37 0.05 2.70 1.02
Maximum Daily Emissions 29.05 34.72 32.37 0.06 23.78 12.01 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

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 Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation were utilized in this analysis (3).

The estimated operation-source emissions associated with the net increase of 161 multifamily residential dwelling units, and reduction in a 736-student elementary school are summarized on Table 5. Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Attachments A and B. As shown on Table 5, operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required. 2579
Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025

15662-05 AQ Assessment
TABLE 5: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS COMPARISON
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Proposed Project: Multifamily Residential 8.44 7.52 53.35 0.14 11.69 3.22 Esperanza SP: Elementary School 6.21 5.76 55.04 0.13 11.43 2.99 Net Emissions 2.24 1.76 -1.68 0.01 0.26 0.23
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Proposed Project: Multifamily Residential 7.45 7.74 36.28 0.14 11.68 3.22 Esperanza SP: Elementary School 5.48 6.15 42.64 0.13 11.42 2.98 Net Emissions 1.97 1.59 -6.37 0.01 0.26 0.23
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
2580
15662-05 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] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

3. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation . 2024. 2581
15662-05 AQ Assessment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD PROPOSED EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
2582
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 1 / 49
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
2583
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 2 / 49

3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated

3.13. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
2584
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 3 / 49

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
2585
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 4 / 49

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. 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
2586
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 5 / 49

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
2587
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 6 / 49

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

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
2588
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 7 / 49

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Construction Start Date 8/3/2026
Operational Year 2029
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 33.992352, -117.563101
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 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Low
Rise
161 Dwelling Unit 10.5 170,660 98,516 — 533 —
2589
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 8 / 49

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. 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. 4.65 3.91 34.7 32.3 0.06 1.77 5.90 7.67 1.62 2.74 4.37 — 7,052 7,052 0.29 0.14 6.00 7,082 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.5 29.0 30.1 32.4 0.06 1.38 2.95 4.33 1.27 1.05 2.32 — 7,029 7,029 0.28 0.17 0.17 7,058 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.27 3.22 7.98 14.6 0.02 0.36 1.16 1.43 0.33 0.35 0.68 — 3,239 3,239 0.11 0.10 1.85 3,274 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.60 0.59 1.46 2.66 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.12 — 536 536 0.02 0.02 0.31 542

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.65 3.91 34.7 32.3 0.06 1.77 5.90 7.67 1.62 2.74 4.37 — 7,052 7,052 0.29 0.07 1.10 7,082 2590
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 9 / 49
2027 1.90 1.60 11.0 22.1 0.03 0.37 1.64 2.01 0.34 0.39 0.73 — 4,644 4,644 0.16 0.14 6.00 4,697 2028 1.79 1.54 10.5 21.5 0.03 0.33 1.64 1.98 0.30 0.39 0.69 — 4,604 4,604 0.15 0.14 5.37 4,656 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.13 3.47 30.1 29.8 0.06 1.38 2.95 4.33 1.27 1.05 2.32 — 7,029 7,029 0.28 0.15 0.17 7,058 2027 1.87 1.57 11.1 20.1 0.03 0.37 1.64 2.01 0.34 0.39 0.73 — 4,515 4,515 0.16 0.14 0.16 4,561 2028 1.76 1.51 10.5 19.7 0.03 0.33 1.64 1.98 0.30 0.39 0.69 — 4,478 4,478 0.16 0.14 0.14 4,524 2029 29.5 29.0 17.8 32.4 0.05 0.56 2.14 2.70 0.51 0.51 1.02 — 6,585 6,585 0.23 0.17 0.16 6,642 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.08 0.91 7.75 8.26 0.02 0.36 0.93 1.29 0.33 0.35 0.68 — 1,822 1,822 0.07 0.03 0.32 1,832 2027 1.34 1.12 7.98 14.6 0.02 0.27 1.16 1.43 0.24 0.28 0.52 — 3,239 3,239 0.11 0.10 1.85 3,274 2028 1.26 1.08 7.58 14.3 0.02 0.24 1.16 1.40 0.22 0.28 0.49 — 3,221 3,221 0.11 0.10 1.66 3,256 2029 3.27 3.22 2.19 4.05 0.01 0.07 0.27 0.34 0.06 0.06 0.13 — 829 829 0.03 0.02 0.34 837 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.20 0.17 1.41 1.51 < 0.005 0.06 0.17 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.12 — 302 302 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 303 2027 0.24 0.20 1.46 2.66 < 0.005 0.05 0.21 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.09 — 536 536 0.02 0.02 0.31 542 2028 0.23 0.20 1.38 2.62 < 0.005 0.04 0.21 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.09 — 533 533 0.02 0.02 0.28 539 2029 0.60 0.59 0.40 0.74 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 137 137 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 139

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. 9.18 8.44 7.52 53.4 0.14 0.35 11.3 11.7 0.34 2.88 3.22 77.0 17,534 17,611 8.40 0.57 33.0 18,023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2591
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 10 / 49
Unmit. 8.14 7.45 7.74 36.3 0.14 0.34 11.3 11.7 0.34 2.88 3.22 77.0 16,726 16,803 8.41 0.58 1.92 17,189 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.09 7.56 5.03 40.0 0.11 0.14 10.3 10.4 0.14 2.62 2.75 77.0 12,752 12,829 8.31 0.54 13.7 13,211 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.48 1.38 0.92 7.29 0.02 0.03 1.88 1.90 0.02 0.48 0.50 12.8 2,111 2,124 1.38 0.09 2.28 2,187

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.00 3.51 4.09 42.8 0.12 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.07 2.88 2.95 — 12,491 12,491 0.46 0.52 31.9 12,689 Area 5.09 4.89 2.76 10.3 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,414 3,414 0.06 0.01 — 3,418 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,575 1,575 0.14 0.01 — 1,582 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 9.18 8.44 7.52 53.4 0.14 0.35 11.3 11.7 0.34 2.88 3.22 77.0 17,534 17,611 8.40 0.57 33.0 18,023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.80 3.31 4.39 34.9 0.11 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.07 2.88 2.95 — 11,708 11,708 0.46 0.54 0.83 11,880 Area 4.26 4.10 2.67 1.14 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,390 3,390 0.06 0.01 — 3,393 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,575 1,575 0.14 0.01 — 1,582 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09 2592
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 11 / 49
Total 8.14 7.45 7.74 36.3 0.14 0.34 11.3 11.7 0.34 2.88 3.22 77.0 16,726 16,803 8.41 0.58 1.92 17,189 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.47 3.02 4.11 33.3 0.11 0.07 10.3 10.4 0.06 2.62 2.68 — 10,875 10,875 0.43 0.50 12.6 11,046 Area 4.54 4.50 0.24 6.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 249 249 0.01 < 0.005 — 249 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,575 1,575 0.14 0.01 — 1,582 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 8.09 7.56 5.03 40.0 0.11 0.14 10.3 10.4 0.14 2.62 2.75 77.0 12,752 12,829 8.31 0.54 13.7 13,211 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.63 0.55 0.75 6.08 0.02 0.01 1.88 1.89 0.01 0.48 0.49 — 1,800 1,800 0.07 0.08 2.09 1,829 Area 0.83 0.82 0.04 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.3 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 261 261 0.02 < 0.005 — 262 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 8.78 10.9 0.22 0.01 — 18.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 — 37.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total 1.48 1.38 0.92 7.29 0.02 0.03 1.88 1.90 0.02 0.48 0.50 12.8 2,111 2,124 1.38 0.09 2.28 2,187

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2593
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 12 / 49
Off-Roa 4.56 3.83 34.6 31.0 0.05 1.77 — 1.77 1.62 — 1.62 — 5,532 5,532 0.22 0.04 — 5,551 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.66 5.66 — 2.69 2.69 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.25 0.21 1.90 1.70 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 303 303 0.01 < 0.005 — 304 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.31 0.31 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.35 0.31 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 50.2 50.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2594
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 13 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.07 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 242 242 0.01 0.01 0.83 245 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 31.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.66 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.74 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.03 3.39 30.0 28.7 0.06 1.38 — 1.38 1.27 — 1.27 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 2595
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 14 / 49
Dust — — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.03 3.39 30.0 28.7 0.06 1.38 — 1.38 1.27 — 1.27 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.66 0.56 4.92 4.71 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,104 1,104 0.04 0.01 — 1,108 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.44 0.44 — 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.90 0.86 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 183 2596
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 15 / 49
Dust — — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 276 276 0.01 0.01 0.94 280 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.7 60.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 63.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 253 253 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 256 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.7 60.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 63.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.2 42.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 42.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.97 9.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.08 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.65 1.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 2597
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 16 / 49
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.38 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.81 1.07 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 201 201 0.01 < 0.005 — 201 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.15 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.3 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2598
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 17 / 49
Worker 0.53 0.47 0.51 6.30 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,467 1,467 0.02 0.06 0.14 1,485 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.51 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 455 455 0.03 0.07 0.03 477 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 115 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 36.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.75 5.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.03 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.33 1.11 10.2 14.0 0.03 0.36 — 0.36 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2599
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 18 / 49
Off-Roa 1.33 1.11 10.2 14.0 0.03 0.36 — 0.36 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.95 0.79 7.27 10.0 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,878 1,878 0.08 0.02 — 1,885 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.14 1.33 1.83 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 311 311 0.01 < 0.005 — 312 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.53 0.48 0.41 7.77 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,568 1,568 0.02 0.05 4.93 1,590 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 446 446 0.03 0.07 1.07 468 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.50 0.45 0.46 5.85 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,438 1,438 0.02 0.05 0.13 1,455 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.49 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 447 447 0.03 0.07 0.03 467 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2600
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 19 / 49
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.36 0.32 0.36 4.38 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,042 1,042 0.01 0.04 1.52 1,055 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.35 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 319 319 0.02 0.05 0.33 334 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 172 172 < 0.005 0.01 0.25 175 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 52.8 52.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 55.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.66 14.0 0.03 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.66 14.0 0.03 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2601
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 20 / 49
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.92 0.77 6.92 10.1 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,884 1,884 0.08 0.02 — 1,890 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.14 1.26 1.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 312 312 0.01 < 0.005 — 313 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.47 0.46 0.40 7.20 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,538 1,538 0.02 0.05 4.42 1,559 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.45 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 436 436 0.03 0.07 0.95 458 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.44 0.43 0.41 5.41 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,411 1,411 0.02 0.05 0.11 1,428 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 436 436 0.03 0.07 0.02 457 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.31 0.32 4.11 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,025 1,025 0.01 0.04 1.37 1,038 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 313 313 0.02 0.05 0.29 328 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2602
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 21 / 49
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 170 170 < 0.005 0.01 0.23 172 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 51.7 51.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 54.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.25 1.04 9.28 14.0 0.03 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,629 2,629 0.11 0.02 — 2,638 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.14 1.24 1.86 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 350 350 0.01 < 0.005 — 351 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.23 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.9 57.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 58.1 2603
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 22 / 49
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.36 0.40 5.07 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 1,386 1,386 0.02 0.05 0.10 1,403 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.45 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 425 425 0.03 0.06 0.02 445 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 187 187 < 0.005 0.01 0.23 189 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.5 56.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 31.0 31.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.36 9.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.80 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2604
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 23 / 49
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.80 0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.07 0.71 1.09 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 166 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.5 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 179 179 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 182 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2605
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 24 / 49
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.30 3.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.14 1.06 1.48 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coating
s

26.7 26.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.5 19.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.6 2606
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 25 / 49
Architect
Coatings

2.93 2.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.23 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.24 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.53 0.53 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 277 277 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 281 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 30.8 30.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 31.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.10 5.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2607 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 26 / 49

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

4.00 3.51 4.09 42.8 0.12 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.07 2.88 2.95 — 12,491 12,491 0.46 0.52 31.9 12,689 Total 4.00 3.51 4.09 42.8 0.12 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.07 2.88 2.95 — 12,491 12,491 0.46 0.52 31.9 12,689 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

3.80 3.31 4.39 34.9 0.11 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.07 2.88 2.95 — 11,708 11,708 0.46 0.54 0.83 11,880 Total 3.80 3.31 4.39 34.9 0.11 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.07 2.88 2.95 — 11,708 11,708 0.46 0.54 0.83 11,880 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.63 0.55 0.75 6.08 0.02 0.01 1.88 1.89 0.01 0.48 0.49 — 1,800 1,800 0.07 0.08 2.09 1,829 Total 0.63 0.55 0.75 6.08 0.02 0.01 1.88 1.89 0.01 0.48 0.49 — 1,800 1,800 0.07 0.08 2.09 1,829

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) 2608
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 27 / 49
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 716 716 0.07 0.01 — 720
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 716 716 0.07 0.01 — 720
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 716 716 0.07 0.01 — 720
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 716 716 0.07 0.01 — 720
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 119
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 119

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 859 859 0.08 < 0.005 — 862 Total 0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 859 859 0.08 < 0.005 — 862 2609
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 28 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 859 859 0.08 < 0.005 — 862 Total 0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 859 859 0.08 < 0.005 — 862 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 — 143 Total 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 — 143

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source 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 0.31 0.16 2.67 1.14 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,390 3,390 0.06 0.01 — 3,393 Consum
er
Product
s

3.65 3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.29 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.84 0.79 0.09 9.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.4 24.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.5 Total 5.09 4.89 2.76 10.3 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,414 3,414 0.06 0.01 — 3,418 2610 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 29 / 49
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.31 0.16 2.67 1.14 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,390 3,390 0.06 0.01 — 3,393 Consum
er
Product
s

3.65 3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.29 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.26 4.10 2.67 1.14 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,390 3,390 0.06 0.01 — 3,393 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 38.4 38.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.5 Consum
er
Product
s

0.67 0.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.10 0.01 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 Total 0.83 0.82 0.04 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.3

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 2611
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 30 / 49
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.9 53.1 65.9 1.32 0.03 — 109 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 8.78 10.9 0.22 0.01 — 18.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 8.78 10.9 0.22 0.01 — 18.0

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225 2612
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 31 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 64.2 0.00 64.2 6.41 0.00 — 225 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 — 37.2
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 — 37.2

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2613
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 32 / 49
Apartme
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18

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) Equipm
ent
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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2614
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 33 / 49
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) Equipm
ent
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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 2615
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 34 / 49
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2616
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 35 / 49
Avoided——————————————————
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——————————————————
———————————————————
2617
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 36 / 49

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/3/2026 8/28/2026 5.00 20.0 10 Grading Grading 8/31/2026 11/20/2026 5.00 60.0 30
Building Construction Building Construction 11/23/2026 3/9/2029 5.00 600 300 Paving Paving 1/15/2029 3/9/2029 5.00 40.0 20
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/15/2029 3/9/2029 5.00 40.0 20

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 2618
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 37 / 49
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 1.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 116 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 15.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
2619
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 38 / 49
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 23.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 345,587 115,196 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 70.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 240 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
2620
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 39 / 49

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

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Low
Rise
943 733 621 316,575 15,986 12,412 10,530 5,363,927

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 161 2621
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 40 / 49
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
345586.5 115,196 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) Apartments Low Rise 754,406 346 0.0330 0.0040 2,681,706

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 6,710,669 1,933,654
2622
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 41 / 49

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 119 —

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 Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
User Defined 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 2623 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 42 / 49

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

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 2624
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 43 / 49
Sea Level Rise — 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 (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 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.

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 2625
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 44 / 49
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 adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 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
Traffic 18.1
Effect Indicators — 2626
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 45 / 49
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
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 —
2627
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 46 / 49
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
Coronary Heart Disease 98.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 94.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 96.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.7
2628
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 47 / 49
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
Traffic Density 21.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 45.2
Other Decision Support—
2629
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 48 / 49
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.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 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.
2630
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed) Detailed Report, 3/13/2025 49 / 49
Construction: Construction Phases Based on client provided data, construction schedule to begin Q3 2026 and completed Q1 2029
Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating overlap to present a conservative analysis
Construction: Off-Road Equipment T/L/B replaced with Crawler Tractor to accurately calculate disturbance for Site Preparation and Grading phases. Standard 8 hours work days
Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction 2631
15662-05 AQ Assessment

ATTACHMENT B

CALEEMOD APPROVED EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
2632
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 1 / 29
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) 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

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
2633
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 2 / 29

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 2634
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 3 / 29

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

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
2635
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 4 / 29

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
2636
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 5 / 29

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
2637
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 6 / 29

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 33.992322, -117.563353
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 2022.1.1.20

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Elementary School 736 Student 13.2 61,532 0.00 0.00 — — 2638
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 7 / 29

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. 5.47 6.21 5.76 55.0 0.13 0.12 11.3 11.4 0.12 2.87 2.99 75.8 14,363 14,438 8.21 0.59 50.6 14,869 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.70 5.48 6.15 42.6 0.13 0.12 11.3 11.4 0.11 2.87 2.98 75.8 13,496 13,572 8.22 0.61 1.36 13,960 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.68 4.60 4.60 33.6 0.09 0.10 7.98 8.07 0.09 2.03 2.12 75.8 9,991 10,066 8.06 0.44 15.6 10,415 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.67 0.84 0.84 6.14 0.02 0.02 1.46 1.47 0.02 0.37 0.39 12.6 1,654 1,667 1.33 0.07 2.59 1,724

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2639
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 8 / 29
Mobile 4.95 4.35 5.34 52.0 0.13 0.09 11.3 11.4 0.08 2.87 2.95 — 13,484 13,484 0.54 0.57 50.6 13,719 Area 0.48 1.83 0.02 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 856 856 0.08 0.01 — 859 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 5.47 6.21 5.76 55.0 0.13 0.12 11.3 11.4 0.12 2.87 2.99 75.8 14,363 14,438 8.21 0.59 50.6 14,869 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.66 4.06 5.75 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.3 11.4 0.08 2.87 2.95 — 12,629 12,629 0.55 0.59 1.31 12,820 Area — 1.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 856 856 0.08 0.01 — 859 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 4.70 5.48 6.15 42.6 0.13 0.12 11.3 11.4 0.11 2.87 2.98 75.8 13,496 13,572 8.22 0.61 1.36 13,960 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.31 2.88 4.19 31.5 0.09 0.06 7.98 8.04 0.06 2.03 2.09 — 9,116 9,116 0.40 0.43 15.6 9,268 Area 0.33 1.70 0.02 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.54 7.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.56 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 856 856 0.08 0.01 — 859 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 3.68 4.60 4.60 33.6 0.09 0.10 7.98 8.07 0.09 2.03 2.12 75.8 9,991 10,066 8.06 0.44 15.6 10,415 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.60 0.53 0.76 5.74 0.02 0.01 1.46 1.47 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,509 1,509 0.07 0.07 2.58 1,534 Area 0.06 0.31 < 0.005 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.252640 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 9 / 29
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 142 142 0.01 < 0.005 — 142 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.92 2.49 0.06 < 0.005 — 4.36 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 0.00 12.0 1.20 0.00 — 41.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total 0.67 0.84 0.84 6.14 0.02 0.02 1.46 1.47 0.02 0.37 0.39 12.6 1,654 1,667 1.33 0.07 2.59 1,724

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School

4.95 4.35 5.34 52.0 0.13 0.09 11.3 11.4 0.08 2.87 2.95 — 13,484 13,484 0.54 0.57 50.6 13,719 Total 4.95 4.35 5.34 52.0 0.13 0.09 11.3 11.4 0.08 2.87 2.95 — 13,484 13,484 0.54 0.57 50.6 13,719 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School

4.66 4.06 5.75 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.3 11.4 0.08 2.87 2.95 — 12,629 12,629 0.55 0.59 1.31 12,820 Total 4.66 4.06 5.75 42.3 0.12 0.09 11.3 11.4 0.08 2.87 2.95 — 12,629 12,629 0.55 0.59 1.31 12,820 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School

0.60 0.53 0.76 5.74 0.02 0.01 1.46 1.47 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,509 1,509 0.07 0.07 2.58 1,534 2641
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 10 / 29
Total 0.60 0.53 0.76 5.74 0.02 0.01 1.46 1.47 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,509 1,509 0.07 0.07 2.58 1,534

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — 381 381 0.04 < 0.005 — 383
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 381 381 0.04 < 0.005 — 383 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — 381 381 0.04 < 0.005 — 383
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 381 381 0.04 < 0.005 — 383 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — 63.1 63.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 63.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 63.1 63.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 63.5

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 2642
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 11 / 29
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School

0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 475 475 0.04 < 0.005 — 476 Total 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 475 475 0.04 < 0.005 — 476 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School

0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 475 475 0.04 < 0.005 — 476 Total 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 475 475 0.04 < 0.005 — 476 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.6 78.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 78.6 78.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source 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
— 1.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2643
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 12 / 29
Architect — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.48 0.44 0.02 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Total 0.48 1.83 0.02 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 1.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.06 0.05 < 0.005 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 Total 0.06 0.31 < 0.005 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
2644
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 13 / 29
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 11.6 15.0 0.35 0.01 — 26.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.92 2.49 0.06 < 0.005 — 4.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.92 2.49 0.06 < 0.005 — 4.36

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2645
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 14 / 29
Element — — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253 ary
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 72.4 0.00 72.4 7.24 0.00 — 253 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 0.00 12.0 1.20 0.00 — 41.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.0 0.00 12.0 1.20 0.00 — 41.9

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2646
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 15 / 29
Element — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
ary
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Element
ary
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01

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) 2647 15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 16 / 29
Equipme
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2648
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 17 / 29

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2649
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 18 / 29

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2650
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 19 / 29
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Elementary School 949 0.00 0.00 247,533 15,936 0.00 0.00 4,154,618

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

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)
0 0.00 92,298 30,766 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
2651
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 20 / 29
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) Elementary School 399,129 349 0.0330 0.0040 1,481,239

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Elementary School 1,784,241 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Elementary School 134 —

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 2652
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 21 / 29
Elementary School Household refrigerators User Defined 150 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00 and/or freezers
Elementary School Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
User Defined 750 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Elementary School Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
User Defined 150 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Elementary School Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
User Defined 150 < 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
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation
2653
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 22 / 29

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 19.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — 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. 2654
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 23 / 29
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 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.

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
2655
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 24 / 29
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 adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 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
Traffic 18.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 80.3
Groundwater 98.1
2656
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 25 / 29
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
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
2657
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 26 / 29
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
Coronary Heart Disease 98.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 94.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 96.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.7
2658
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 27 / 29
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
Traffic Density 21.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 45.2
2659
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 28 / 29
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.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Taken from site plan
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic Analysis Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
2660
15662 - Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment (Approved) Detailed Report, 10/18/2023 29 / 29
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R-404A (the CalEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively. Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater. 2661

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR

THE EUCALYPTUS AND AMHERST AVENUES

PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN 1073-101-05
Lead Agency:

City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Preparer:

BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
Project Proponent:

Moser Ventures, Inc.
45478 Blackfoot Way
Indian Wells, California 92210
April 1, 2025
2662
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenue Project i
Archaeological Database Information
Author: Kathleen A. Krogh, B.A. and Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Client/Project Proponent: Moser Ventures, Inc.
45478 Blackfoot Way
Indian Wells, California 92210
Report Date: April 1, 2025
Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey
USGS Quadrangle: Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 7 West of the Corona North (7.5-minute) USGS Quadrangle
Acreage: 10.02 acres
Key Words: Survey; no cultural resources identified; Corona North, California USGS topographic quadrangle; no further archaeological study recommended.
2663
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenue Project ii
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT........................................................................ iv

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

1.1 Project Description............................................................................................1.0–1

1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1

1.3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................1.0–5

1.3.1 Prehistoric Period....................................................................................1.0–5

1.3.2 Historic Period.........................................................................................1.0–10

1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search .................................................1.0–16

1.5 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................1.0–17

1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act.....................................................1.0–17

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN.............................................................................................2.0–1

3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1

3.1 Survey Methods................................................................................................3.0–1

3.2 Results of the Field Survey...............................................................................3.0–1

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................4.0–1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED.......................5.0–1

6.0 CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................6.0–1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................7.0–1 List of Appendices
Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search*
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix List of Figures
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map...................................................................................1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3 2664
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenue Project iii
List of Figures (Continued)
Figure Description Page
Figure 1.1–3 Site Plan.........................................................................................................1.0–4 List of Plates
Plate Description Page
Plate 1.3–1 George Chaffey................................................................................................1.0–14 Plate 1.3–2 William Chaffey...............................................................................................1.0–14 Plate 1.3–3 1887 View of the town of Ontario drawn by H.S. Crocker Co. ......................1.0–15 Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the project from the eastern corner, facing west.........................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the project from the southern corner, facing north .....................3.0–2 Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the project from the northern corner, facing south .....................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the water catchment basin from the western corner of the project, facing east ...........................................................................................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–5 Western overview of the water catchment basin and graded pad, facing northeast...............................................................................................3.0–4 Plate 3.2–6 Overview of the modern storm drain in the southern corner of the project, facing southeast................................................................................................3.0–4 List of Tables
Plate Description Page
Table 1.4–1 Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Project .........................1.0–16 2665
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project iv

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
In response to a request from the project applicant, a cultural resources study was conducted by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the proposed Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project bound by Chatham Street, Clifton Avenue, South Amherst Avenue, and East Eucalyptus Avenue, within the city of Ontario, in San Bernardino County, California. The 10.02-acre property (Assessor’s Parcel Number 1073-101-05) is situated within Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 7 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (7.5-minute) Corona North topographic quadrangle maps. As designed, the applicant proposes to clear the property for the construction of a multi-family residential development with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure.

The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record cultural resources present within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources that will be impacted by the development as part of the City of Ontario’s environmental review process conducted in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The cultural resources investigation included the review of an archaeological records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton), in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any recorded archaeological sites within the project.

The records search identified 11 resources within one mile of the proposed project, none of which are located within the subject property. The records search also identified 38 previous studies conducted within one mile of the project, one of which overlaps the subject property (Dice 2002).

A review of historic maps and aerial photographs illustrate that the subject property was utilized for agricultural purposes as early as 1938. Additionally, the property was entirely graded in 2018 resulting in the development of a water catchment basin and a graded pad. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The SLF search results were negative for recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity.

BFSA archaeologist Parker Sheriff conducted the archaeological survey of the project on February 27, 2025. The cultural resources survey did not identify any cultural resources within the project. Due to the previous ground-disturbing activities and the absence of identified cultural resources within the project boundaries, the potential for any significant resources to be present or impacted by the proposed project is minimal. Given that no archaeological sites, features, or artifacts have been identified within or directly adjacent to the project, no potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed development are anticipated. Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or mitigation measures are recommended.

A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the BFSA archaeological laboratory in Poway, California.
2666
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description
The archaeological survey program for the proposed Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA regulatory requirements and City of Ontario environmental requirements. The proposed project is bound by Chatham Street, Clifton Avenue, South Amherst Avenue, and East Eucalyptus Avenue, within the city of Ontario, in San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The 10.02-acre property (APN 1073-101-05) is located within Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 7 West as shown on the USGS 1:24,000-scale (7.5-minute) Corona North topographic quadrangle maps (Figure 1.1–2). As designed, the applicant proposes to clear the property for the construction of a multi-family residential development with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure (Figures 1.1–3).

The decision to request this investigation was based upon the cultural resource sensitivity of the locality as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which, in southwestern San Bernardino County, were focused around freshwater resources and a food supply. Within the city of Ontario, historic resources tend to be associated with the historic agricultural, industrial, or residential development of the region.

1.2 Environmental Setting
The Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project is situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges are a series of northwest- to southeast-trending mountain ranges separated by similarly trending valleys, which make up the southernmost segment of a chain of North American Mesozoic batholiths that extend from Alaska to the southern tip of Baja California. Geologically, the project is mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene-aged young eolian deposits (Morton et al. 2002). These surficial sediments are described as “chiefly unconsolidated, moderately well sorted, fine- to medium-grained sand” (Morton et al. 2002). The specific soil types found within the project are mapped as Delhi fine sand (Db) and Hilmar loamy fine sand (NRCS 2023). The average elevation within the project is approximately 700 feet above mean sea level.

The proposed project is situated approximately three miles north of the Santa Ana River.

Historically, the property was utilized for agriculture. In 2018, the property was completely graded. The vegetation found within the property consists of non-native weeds and grasses. 2667
2668
2669
2670
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–5

1.3 Cultural Setting

1.3.1 Prehistoric Period
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex, the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex, and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.”
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.

Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP).

Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).

Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995).

Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9000 to 1300 YBP) The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP.

The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change 2671
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–6
throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).

The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP).

At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters 1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects upon the types of resources available to prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten, but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000).

The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water, and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants, including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002).

The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, and horizons, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, and Pauma, as well as the Intermediate Period.

Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. 2672
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–7
Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present)
Gabrielino
At the time of Spanish contact, the territory of the Gabrielino, also known ethnographically as the Tongva, covered much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of presentday San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller, seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and several different species of snakes (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Little is known about the social structure of the Gabrielino; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or longestablished lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society.

Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
2673
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–8
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.

Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting village tributes, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by safekeeping of the sacred bundle, a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earthcovered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a yuvar, an open-air, ceremonial structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Clothing was minimal; men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.

Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hooks and lines, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wooden paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering.

Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).

The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976).
2674
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–9
Serrano
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data:

The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were, one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal holdings. (Strong [1971] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam.

The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b).

According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon “economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California” (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large, autonomous political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after marriage, women would still keep their original lineage and would still participate in those ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b).

According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano are very similar to those of the Cahuilla:

There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death, supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged poweraccess levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickstertransformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and Smith 1978b)
2675
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–10
The Serrano had a shaman who acquired powers through dreams, which were induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer, using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b).

Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband, wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b).

The Serrano were primarily hunter/gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality. Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots, bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924).

The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinewbacked bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bullroarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches, cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978).

1.3.2 Historic Period
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, 2676
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–11
oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.

European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastián Vizcaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Vizcaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Vizcaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial, long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).

The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).

Native Californians may have first coalesced with Europeans around 1769 when the first Spanish mission was established in San Diego. In 1771, Father Francisco Garcés first searched the Californian desert for potential mission sites. Interactions between local tribes and Franciscan priests occurred by 1774 when Juan Bautista de Anza made an exploration of Alta California.

Serrano contact with the Europeans may have occurred as early as 1771 or 1772, but it was not until approximately 1819 that the Spanish directly influenced the culture. The Spanish established asistencias in San Bernardino, Pala, and Santa Ysabel. Between the founding of the asistencia and secularization in 1834, most of the Serranos in the San Bernardino Mountains were moved to the nearby missions (Beattie and Beattie 1939:366) while the Cahuilla maintained a high level of autonomy from Spain (Bean 1978).

Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County.
2677
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–12
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente (circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).

Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.

As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.

These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered expansive portions of California and, by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo (Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments within western Riverside County.

The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros:

We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.

Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21) 2678
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–13
Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans as compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The ranchers, both Mexican and American, did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976).

By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war (Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines, business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27 separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was established during the earlier rancho period.

Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in California, nearly half of which were estimated to be in Riverside County. Population growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson 1971).

General History of the City of Ontario
In late 1881, Canadian brothers George and William Chaffey (Plates 1.3–1 and 1.3–2) purchased 6,218 acres of land in the Cucamonga Desert known as the “San Antonio lands.” The Chaffey brothers soon expanded to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the south and into the San Antonio Canyon to the north (City of Ontario n.d.). The Chaffey brothers intended to establish a “model colony” for migrants coming to the region and named the area “Ontario” after their hometown. Before the land could be used, however, water had to be found and brought into the town. Because of this, George laid miles of cement pipe leading from San Antonio Canyon, which was later tapped into by the San Antonio Water Company. The need for electric power to lift the water from the deep wells in San Antonio Canyon led to the establishment of the first commercially successful hydroelectric plant in the country, the Ontario Power Company (City of Ontario n.d.). 2679
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–14
During the late nineteenth century, anyone purchasing land within the Ontario Colony automatically received shares in the water company, which ensured that water would be pumped to their property. This development aided in establishing agricultural properties, primarily citrus groves, within Ontario (Plate 1.3–3). The Ontario Colony was officially incorporated as a city in 1891 and continued to grow throughout the twentieth century (City of Ontario n.d.). The city became known for air flight after Judge Archie Mitchell, Waldo Waterman, and other airplane enthusiasts established Latimer Field in 1923. Urban growth pushed the airfield further and further east until it reached its present location, which currently functions as the Ontario International Airport. During World War II, the airport served as a busy training center for fighter jet pilots (City of Ontario n.d.).

Agriculture played a vital role in the development of the region. The area surrounding the subject property was historically tied to wine production. The most notable wine producer in the area was Secundo Guasti, an Italian immigrant who planted vineyards in the area in 1902. Guasti purchased a town site called Zucker in 1900, which had begun to grow around the 1875 Southern Pacific Railroad’s South Cucamonga Station. Guasti established the Italian Vineyard Company and “His innovations in dry cultivation and processing techniques made the winemaking very productive” (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 2011). Guasti organized the emigration of “experienced workers, coopers and craftsmen” and their families from Italy to work and live at his winery; by 1910, the Guasti vineyards consisted of 5,000 acres, which extended from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the valley floor, and Zucker was renamed Guasti (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 2011). The vineyard cultivated a large variety of grapes specifically suited for wine, particularly for sherry and port varietals and “In spite of Prohibition and two World Wars, Guasti Winery remained in production until about 1962 when wine-making operations were relocated” (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 2011). In 1975, the Guasti Winery was designated a California Point of Historical Interest (Meighan 1975).

Between the 1950s and 1980s, the dairy industry flourished in other agricultural areas surrounding Ontario. Concerned with what many viewed as a decline in suitable agricultural land, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors designated 14,000 acres of agricultural land south and west of the city of Ontario as an “agricultural preserve” (City of Ontario 2006). With the dairy-friendly zoning in the southwest corner of San Bernardino County, many Dutch, Basque, Plate 1.3–1: George
Chaffey. (Photograph
courtesy of Ontario City
Library, Robert E.

Ellingwood Model
Colony History Room
n.d.)
Plate 1.3–2: William
Chaffey.
(Photograph courtesy of
the City of Ontario 2013)
2680
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–15
and Portuguese families relocated to the region and became the cornerstone of the dairy industry.

By the 1980s, the area was recognized as having more cows per acre and higher milk yields than anywhere else in the world (City of Ontario 2006). Starting in the late twentieth century, much of the preserve began to be annexed by neighboring cities due to a housing boom and increased operating costs for dairies. In 1999, 8,200 acres were annexed by the City of Ontario with the remaining land annexed by either the City of Chino or Chino Hills. The portion annexed by the City of Ontario was labeled the “New Model Colony,” creating a connection with the Chaffey brothers’ original “Model Colony of Ontario” (Galvin and Associates 2004; City of Ontario 2006).

Plate 1.3–3: 1887 view of the town of Ontario drawn by H.S. Crocker Co. (Illustration courtesy of Vintage City Maps 1887)
2681
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–16

1.4 Results of the Archaeological Records Search
An archaeological records search was conducted by BFSA at the SCCIC (Appendix B).

The records search identified 11 resources within one mile of the project, none of which are located within the subject property (Table 1.4–1). All of the recorded resources are historic and are primarily associated with the historic occupation and agricultural use of the project vicinity. These resources include four farm and single-family properties, two farms, one single-family property, one trash scatter, two transmission lines, and one site containing a trash scatter, water conveyance system, utility pole stumps, a cistern, and a possible well.

Table 1.4–1
Cultural Resources Located Within One Mile of the Project Site Number(s)/Name Resource Type
RIV-1848 Historic trash scatter
P-33-023815 and P-36-023626 Historic farm
RIV-12,624 Historic trash scatter, water conveyance system, utility pole stumps, cistern, and possible well
P-36-012622, P-36-012623, P-36-023625, and P36-023627 Historic farm and single-family property P-36-025440 and P-36-026051 Historic transmission line
11111 Edison Avenue Historic single-family property
The records search also identified 38 previous studies which have been conducted within one mile of the proposed project, one of which overlaps the subject property (Dice 2002). The Dice (2002) study conducted an archaeological survey and records search that covered the western half of the subject property and did not identify any cultural resources within the subject property.

The following historic sources were also reviewed by BFSA:
• Historic USGS topographic maps (1942 to 1975)
• Historic aerial photographs (1938 to2025)
• The NRHP Index
• The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE)
• The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) Additionally, a review of historic maps and aerial photographs for the project illustrates that the subject property was developed for agricultural uses as early as 1938. Between 1938 and 2014, the subject property primarily consisted of cultivated fields. By 2018, the entire subject 2682
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–17
property was graded during the development of the surrounding area which resulted in the creation of a water catchment basin in the northwest portion of the project. Subsequent aerial photographs demonstrate that as the surrounding neighborhood transitioned to residential development, the subject property remained vacant but at times was cleared of vegetation.

BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search results were negative for recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity. All correspondence with the NAHC is provided in Appendix C.

1.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important.

1.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR [California Code of Regulations]. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2683
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–18
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

According to CEQA (§ 15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
2684
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

1.0–19
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a) but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

Section 15064.5(d) and 15064.5(e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.

Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) states:
(d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).
2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
2685
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

2.0–1

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is southwestern San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project included the survey of a 10.02-acre property. Given the area involved, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal here is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of identified resources. The assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of factors, as well as the ability of a resource to address regional research topics and issues.

Although elementary resource evaluation programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions consider the small size and location of the project discussed above.

Research Questions:
• Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual?
• Do the types of any located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited?
• How do located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area?
• How do located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for mountainous environments of the region?
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind:
2686
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

2.0–2
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the resource(s), and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural resources identified. 2687
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

3.0–1

3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS
The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, archival research, and an intensive cultural resources survey of the 10.02-acre property, along with the preparation of this technical report. This study was conducted in conformance with Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Regulatory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).

3.1 Survey Methods
The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 15 meters apart when not obstructed by the current development within the property. Photographs documenting survey areas and overall survey conditions were taken frequently.

3.2 Results of the Field Survey
BFSA archaeologist Parker Sheriff conducted the archaeological survey of the project and off-site infrastructure improvement areas on February 27, 2025. Visibility of the natural ground surface was characterized as moderate to good (Plates 3.2‒1 to 3.2‒3). The vegetation within the property is dominated by non-native grasses and weeds. The survey confirmed that the entire property has been previsouly graded. Grading resulted in the devlopment of a water catchment basin within the northwest portion of the property and a pad within the southern half of the property (Plates 3.2‒4 to 3.2‒5). Additionally, within the southern corner of the project, a modern storm drain is present (Plate 3.2‒6). No cultural resources were identified during the survey. 2688
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

3.0–2
Plate 3.2‒1: Overview of the project from the eastern corner, facing west.

Plate 3.2‒2: Overview of the project from the southern corner, facing north. 2689
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

3.0–3
Plate 3.2‒3: Overview of the project from the northern corner, facing south.

Plate 3.2‒4: Overview of the water catchment basin from the western corner of the project, facing east.
2690
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

3.0–4
Plate 3.2‒5: Western overview of the water catchment basin and graded pad, facing northeast.

Plate 3.2‒6: Overview of the modern storm drain in the southern corner of the project, facing southeast.
2691
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

4.0–1

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The archaeological study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project was completed in accordance with City of Ontario environmental policies and CEQA regulatory requirements.

No cultural resources were identified within the project during the survey. Further, no natural resources associated with archaeological sites such as natural water sources or bedrock outcroppings were present within the project. A review of historic aerial photographs demonstrate that the subject property was developed for agricultural uses as early as 1938. Further, in 2018, the entire subject property was graded resulting in the development of a water catchment basin and a graded pad.

Due to the prior ground disturbance and the absence of identified cultural resources within the project vicinity, the potential for any significant resources to be present or impacted by the proposed project is minimal. Given that no archaeological sites, features, or artifacts have been identified within or directly adjacent to the project, no potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed development are anticipated. Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or mitigation measures are recommended. A copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton.

2692
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

5.0–1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The archaeological survey program for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project was directed by Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by BFSA archaeologists Parker Sheriff. The report text was prepared by Kathleen Krogh and Tracy A. Stropes. Graphics were created by Kathleen Krogh. Technical editing and report production was conducted by Payton Swanson. The archaeological records search was conducted by Emily Soong at the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. 2693
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6.0–1

6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

April 1, 2025
Tracy A. Stropes, M.A, RPA Date
Principal Investigator
2694
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

7.0–1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Antevs, Ernst
1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9–23. Berkeley, California.

Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 570–574. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California.

Benedict, Ruth Fulton
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3).

Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California.

Caughey, John W.
1970 California: A Remarkable State's Life History. 3
rd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.

Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York 2695
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

7.0–2
City of Ontario
N.d. Facts &History. Electronic document, https://www.ontarioca.gov/FactsAndHistory, accessed February 8, 2021.
2006 Environmental Impact Report for Subarea 29 (Hettinga) Specific Plan, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. City of Ontario with Albert A. Webb Associates.

Unpublished report on file at the City of Ontario, California.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Curray, Joseph R.
1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Dice, Michael
2002 A Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Paleontological Records Search of the Westra Dairy Residential Project, City of Ontario, California. L & L Environmental, Inc.

Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, California.

Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records 1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley.

Erlandson, John M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R.H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Fagan, Brian M.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson, London.

Gallegos, Dennis
1985 Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1).

Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. 2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2696
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

7.0–3
Galvin and Associates
2004 The City of Ontario’s Historic Context For the New Model Colony Area. Unpublished report on file at the City of Ontario, Ontario, California.

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories.

Rubidoux Printing, Riverside, California.

Heizer, Robert F.
1978 Trade and Trails. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, pp. 1–49. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Martin, Paul S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969-974.

Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by Patricia M. Masters and Nicholas C. Fleming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1-A19. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.

Meighan, Clement W.
1975 California Point of Historical Interest: SBR-084 (Guasti/Brookside Winery). On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California.
2697
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

7.0–4
Miller, Jaquelin Neva
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Morton, D.M., C.H. Gray, K.R. Bovard, and Michael Dawson 2002 Geologic map of the Corona North 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002-22 scale 1:24,000.

Moss, Madonna L. and Jon M. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Pacific Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-46.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2023 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 2024.

Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California.

Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.
1963 The Silver Dons. In The History of San Diego (Volume 3). Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.

Reddy, Seetha
2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM Affiliates. Manuscript on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Rogers, Malcolm
1929 Archaeological Field Work in North America During 1928, California. American Anthropologist 31(2):340–341.

Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History. 2nd ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. 2698
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

7.0–5
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Strong, William Duncan
1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.

Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
2011 Guasti Specific Plan. Electronic document, https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/ default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Maps/guasti_existing_conditions.pdf, accessed November 23, 2020.

Van Devender, Thomas R. and W. Geoffrey Spaulding
1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science 204(4394):701–710.

Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:246–338. 2699
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Personnel
2700
Tracy A. Stropes, MA, RPA
Vice President of Cultural Resources/ Principal Archaeologist BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road  Suite A 
Phone: (858) 484-0915  Fax: (858) 679-9896  Email: [email protected] Education
Master of Arts, Anthropology, San Diego State University, California 2007 Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2000 Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Archaeological Institute of America
Association of Oregon Archaeologists
Experience
Vice President of Cultural Resources/Principal Archaeologist March 2009–Present BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
Poway, California
Tracy A. Stropes has over 33 years of experience in cultural resource management, with experience in project management, report authorship, lithic analysis, laboratory management, Native American consultation, and technical report editing for numerous projects throughout the western United States.

Mr. Stropes has conducted cultural resource surveys, archaeological site testing and evaluations for National Register eligibility and CEQA compliance, mitigation of resources through data recovery for archaeological sites, budget and report preparation, and direction of crews of all sizes for projects ranging in duration from a single-day site visit to multiple years. Mr. Stropes is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and is on the list of archaeological consultants qualified to conduct archaeological investigations in the city and county of San Diego, county of Riverside, State of Oregon, State of Arizona, and on Arizona and California BLM lands. He has served as project archaeologist for hundreds of projects and composed data recovery and preservation programs for sites throughout the western United States for both CEQA- and NEPA-level compliance.

Archaeological Principal Investigator June 2008–February 2009 TRC Solutions Irvine, California
Cultural resource segment of Natural Sciences and Permitting Division; management of archaeological investigations for private companies and local, state, and federal agencies, personnel management, field and laboratory supervision, lithic analysis, Native American consultation and reporting, NRHP and CEQA site evaluations, and authoring/coauthoring cultural resource management reports. 2701
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 2
Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist June 2006–May 2008 Archaeological Resource Analysts Oceanside, California
As a sub consultant, served as Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist for several projects for SRS Inc., including field direction, project and personnel management, lab analysis, and authorship of company reports.

Project Archaeologist September 1996–June 2006
Gallegos & Associates Carlsbad, California
Project management, laboratory management, lithic analysis, field direction, Native American consultation, report authorship/technical editing, and composition of several data recovery/preservation programs for both CEQA and NEPA level compliance.

Project Archaeologist September 1993–September 1996
Macko Inc. Santa Ana, California
Project management, laboratory management, lithic analysis, field supervision, and report authorship/technical editing.

Archaeological Field Technician January 1993–September 1993 Chambers Group Inc. Irvine, California
Archaeological excavation, surveying, monitoring, wet screen facilities management, and project logistics.

Archaeological Field Technician May 1992–September 1992 John Minch and Associates San Juan Capistrano, California Archaeological excavation, surveying, monitoring, wet screen facilities management, and project logistics.

Selected Reports/Papers
Principal Author
2023 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the Oak Creek Canyon Project, City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Ambient Pacific OCC, LLC. 2023 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for The Questhaven 76 Project, San Diego County, California (APNs 223-070-007, 223-070-008, and 223-080-046). Prepared for ColRich. 2023 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Bermuda Dunes Self Storage Project, PAR220053, Riverside County, California. Prepared for FAMA Dairy.
2023 A Cultural Resources Study for 4846 Pacifica Drive, City of San Diego. Prepared for Colliers International.
2023 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Maison’s Sierra Project, City of Lancaster, California (Tract No. 27099). Prepared for Ravello Holdings, Inc. 2702
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 3
2023 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for the Omni Hotel Driving Range/Parking Lot Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for TRT Holdings, Inc. 2022 A Class III Historic Resources Study for the Anna Avenue Project for Section 106 Compliance, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for John Smith Earthworks, Inc. 2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the Grand Avenue Project, Riverside County, California (APN 379-060-005). Prepared for TriPointe Homes 2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Boulder Springs North Project, Riverside County, California (TTMs 31243, 31244, and 31245; APNs 321-020-027, -028, -029, and -030 and 321- 130-047 and -048). Prepared for KB Home.
2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Alpine Rancho Palo Verde Project, San Diego County, California (SPL-219-00698-CJA). Prepared for Schindler Real Estate Services, Inc. 2022 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the Cumming Ranch Project, San Diego County, California (APNs 282-010-08, -30, -34, and -43; 283-011-06; 283-021-01 and -02; 283-022-02; 283-041- 25 and -26; and 283-051-01). Prepared for 805 Properties. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Gatchell Road Project, San Diego County, California (Project No. 100203). Prepared for the National Park Service. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for Site CA-SDI-11,934/H, San Diego County, California (APN 532-520-15). Prepared for the National Park Service. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Renaissance Ranch Project, Riverside County, California (SPL-2004-01431-JPL). Prepared for Richland Developers, Inc. 2021 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Coppel Remodel & Addition Project, La Jolla, California.

Prepared for Marengo Morton Architects, Inc.
2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for CAB-20-1, San Diego County, California (APN 532-520-15). Prepared for the National Park Service.
2021 Cultural Resources Study for 7951 Paseo Del Ocaso, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Aidlin Darling Design.
2021 Cultural Resources Study for the Secret Hills Ranch Project, San Diego County, California (PDS2020- LDGRMJ-30253, APN 520-060-18)
2021 Cultural Resources Study for the UCLA Cedar Suites and Willow Creek Staff Housing Project, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. 2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for CA-SDI-13,884, San Diego County, California (APN 532-520-13). Prepared for the National Park Service. 2021 A Cultural Resources Study for the UCLA Glamping Facility Project, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for UCLA Capital Programs. 2021 Archaeological Test Results for 2596 Chalcedony Street, San Diego, California. Prepared for Colliers International.
2703
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 4
2021 Cultural Resources Study for the 12247 Elliott Avenue Project, Los Angeles County, California.

Prepared for EPD Solutions.
2021 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Roquet Ranch Project, City of Colton, San Bernardino County, California (Tentative Tract Map No. 19983; APNs 116-701-101, -102, 116-702-101, -105, -121, -122, -123, and 116-703-118). Prepared for Sunmeadows, LLC. 2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historical Resources Study for the Ocean Breeze Ranch Project, Bonsall, San Diego County, California (SPL-2020-00176). Prepared for Ocean Breeze Ranch, LLC. 2020 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Encinitas Beach Hotel Project, Encinitas, California.

Prepared for JMI Realty, LLC
2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Pacifica Estates Project, Fallbrook, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Jose Islas.
2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Hidden Valley Ranch Project, SPL-2004- 01124, City of Poway, California. Prepared for Barbara Malone. 2020 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for The Farms in Poway Project, Poway, San Diego County, California (APNs 273-110-070, -080, and -180). Prepared for Kevin McNamara. 2020 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Hansen Lot Split Project, TPM 37655, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Forest Hansen.
2020 Cultural Resources Study for the West Coast Cold Storage Project, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside (APNs 178-140-010 and -018). Prepared for
2020 Cultural Resources Study for the 340 East Bradley Avenue Project, San Diego County, California (PDS2021-LDGRMJ-30346). Prepared for A N1-Mart, LLC.
2019 Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Atwell Phase 1A Project (formerly Butterfield Specific Plan), City of Banning, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Pardee Homes. 2019 A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Glen Circle Project, Poway, California. Prepared for MDD Homes.
2019 Cultural Resources Survey for the Highlands at Warner Springs and Off-Site Fire Access Road Project, Warner Springs, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Warner Springs Estates, LLC. 2019 A Cultural Resources Assessment for the 8801 East Marginal Way Project, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. Prepared for CenterPoint Properties Trust. 2019 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the 7980 Park Village Road Emergency Repair Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Orion Construction Corporation. 2019 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harmony Grove Village, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Lennar – San Diego Division.
2019 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Price-Cohen Residence Project, 2045 Lowry Place, La Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Lena Price and Thomas Cohen. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Melrose Drive Widening Project, City of Oceanside, California. Prepared for California West Communities. 2704
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 5
2019 A Cultural Resources Study for the Majestic Chino Heritage Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Ocean Breeze Ranch Project, Bonsall, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Ocean Breeze Ranch, LLC.
2019 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Arthofer Residence Project, 1890 Viking Way, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Frank and Sharon Arthofer. 2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Greentree Ranch Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2018 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Escondido Country Club Project, SPL-2018- 00135-CJA, City of Escondido, California. Prepared for New Urban West, Inc. 2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the North County Plaza Project, Carlsbad, California.

Prepared for Planning Systems, Inc.
2018 Cultural Resources Addendum Report for the Ivey Palms Project, Thousand Palms, Riverside, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2017 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Altman Residence Project, 9696 La Jolla Farms Road, La Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Steve and Lisa Altman. 2017 Cultural Resources Study for the Escondido Country Club Project, City of Escondido, California.

Prepared for New Urban West, Inc.
2017 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tract 28859 Project for Section 106 Compliance. Prepared for Menifee 28859, LLC.
2016 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the Lake Ranch Project, TR 36730, Riverside County, California.
2016 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Imperial Beach Bikeway Village Project, 536 13th Street and 535 Florence Street, Imperial Beach, California. Prepared for Bikeway Village, LLC. 2015 Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Site SDI-10,237 Locus F, Everly Subdivision Project, El Cajon, California. Prepared for Shea Homes. 2015 A Class III Historic Resource Study for the Miramar Clearwell Improvements Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Global Environmental Permitting, Inc. 2015 A Class III Historic Resource Study for the College Boulevard Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Bent West, LLC.
2015 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Parkside Project for Section 106 Compliance, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Lennar Corporation.
2015 A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Zhao Residence Project, Poway, California (275-240-66).

Prepared for Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty.
2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Utah Trail Project, County of San Bernardino, California (APNs 621-281-22 through 621-281-25). Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC. 2705
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 6
2014 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Sky Canyon Project (PP25309), Riverside County, California. Prepared for Rocky Snider California Project Management Office. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Shoshone Valley Road Project, County of San Bernardino, California (APNs 613-233-01, -02, -03, -04, -27, -28, -29, and -30). Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Nuevo 055 Project, Community of Nuevo, County of Riverside. Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC.

2014 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Bourgeoios Project, Poway, California. Prepared for Bill Yen & Associates, Inc.
2014 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Aliso Canyon Major Subdivision Project, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Zephyr Partners. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 723 Project, San Diego, California.

Prepared for
Ortiz Corporation.
2013 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Rogers Tierra Bonita Project, Poway, California. Prepared for John D. Fitch & Associates.
2013 A Cultural Resource Assessment Update for the Girard Townhome Project, TR 35477, Riverside County, California. Prepared for G8 Development, Inc.
2013 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Ridge Park Project, City of Temecula, California.

Prepared for Ambient Communities.
2013 A Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the Citrus Heights/Fairway Drive Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for CV Communities. 2013 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Bixby Highgrove Project (TTM 36437), Riverside County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the Ramona Ranch Affordable Housing Project for Section 106 Compliance, San Diego County, California. Prepared for AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. 2013 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Yates Road Project (TTM 36437), Riverside County, California. Prepared for CV Communities, LLC.
2013 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Warner Ranch Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for HP Warner Ranch, LP.
2013 A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for TPM 36585, Riverside County, California. Prepared for GF Real Estate Services.
2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for TR 31597 and TR 32627, Riverside County, California.

Prepared for Standard Pacific Homes.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Sunny Cal Project, City of Beaumont, County of Riverside.

Prepared for CV Communities, LLC.
2706
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 7
2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for The Sierra Bella Project for Section 106 Compliance, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Forestar Corona, LLC. 2013 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the Moosa Creek Mitigation Bank Project. Prepared for a Creek LLC.
2013 Archaeological Survey of the Rohmiller Residence for a Bulletin 560 Permit Application, 2350 Calle De La Garza, La Jolla, California 92037 (APN 346-180-22). Prepared for Architect Mark D. Lyon, Inc.
2013 Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Oak Creek Project, City of Escondido, California. Prepared for New Urban West, Inc.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Hope Harbor Project, Riverside County, California.

Prepared for Medhat Rofael.
2013 Archaeological Survey of the Liske Residence, La Jolla, California. Prepared for ECEGC Inc. 2013 An Updated Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 36484 and 36485, Audie Murphy Ranch. Prepared for Brookfield Residential. 2013 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study For the 401 West Ash Street Project San Diego, California.

Prepared for PierPoint Legacy Holdings, LLC.
2013 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Ten on Columbia Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for InDev, Inc.
2013 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Washington Avenue Project, City of Murrieta, California.

Prepared for Coastal Land Solutions.
2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Wildomar 23 Project, Riverside County, California.

Prepared for Lennar.
2012 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the USGS Creepmeter Project. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Office.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the for the Johnston Residence Project, La Jolla, California.

Prepared for Heather Johnston.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Howell Residence Project, Poway, California. Prepared for Cal Howell.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 799 Project. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study For the Villa Hermosa Project San Diego, California. Prepared for David Chow.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Payan Property Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Landmark Engineering.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project, Carlsbad, California.

Prepared for Planning Systems.
2707
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 8
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Encore Trust Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Metcalf Development and Consulting.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Andres Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Engineering Design Group.
2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Diamond Springs Project, Riverside County, California.

Prepared for Benjamin J. Stables III, B 3 Consulting.
2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the ActivCare at Mission Bay Project, San Diego, California.

Prepared for ActivCare Living, Inc.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Water Group 790 Project, City of San Diego, California.

Prepared for Orion Construction Corporation.
2012 Results of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mission Brewery Villas Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Eilar Associates, Inc.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Gatto Residence Project, La Jolla, California.

Prepared for Marengo Morton Architects Inc.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sunset Cliffs Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for KTA Construction.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 682M Project, City of San Diego, California.

Prepared for BRH Garver.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pelberg Residence Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Linda and Art Pelberg.
2012 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Rose Creek Bikeway Bridge Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Flatiron West, Inc.
2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for HPS Mechanical, Inc.
2011 A Class III Cultural Resources Study for the La Dama de Oro Project, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Mohave Gold Mining & Exploration, Inc. 2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Jacobs Health Care Facility Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Jacobs Health Care, LLC.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study For the Rowland Auto Dismantling Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for David Rowland.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Dye Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Eric Dye.
2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Rosa Academy Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Santa Rosa Academy Charter School c/o Bradley Burke Competitive Edge Development, LLC.
2011 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Study for SDI-4606 Locus B for Saint Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California. Prepared for Saint Gabriel’s Catholic Church. 2708
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 9
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Nooren Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Jack Nooren.
2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 768 Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation.
2011 Cultural Resource Test for the 10th Avenue Parking Lot Project, City of San Diego, California.

Prepared for 11th and B Investment Associates, LLC.
2011 A Cultural Resources Study for the Ampudia Lot Project, City of San Diego, California. Prepared for Venture Pacific Commercial Services, Inc.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Hyde Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Paul and Denise Hyde.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Fialko Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Thomas Armstrong Construction, Inc.
2011 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 682M Project, City of San Diego, California.

Prepared for HTA Engineering & Construction Inc.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Butterfield Residence Project, La Jolla, California.

Prepared for Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
2011 A Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Eichen Residence Project, San Diego, California.

Prepared for Steigerwald-Dougherty, Inc.
2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Galway Downs Project, Riverside County, California.

Prepared for Trip Hord.
2011 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for Rancho Bella Vista Phase IV (TR 31871), Riverside County, California. Prepared for Lennar Inland Division.
2011 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Salvation Army Vehicle Storage Area Demolition Project. Prepared for The Salvation Army General Counsel. 2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Kates Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Brad and Shannon Kates.
2011 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Kralik Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for John Kralik.
2010 An Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Cricket Cell Tower Project (Permit # 3399 06-032), San Diego County, California. Prepared for Ken Hayes.
2010 A Cultural Resources Study for the 47th Street Warehouse Project City of San Diego, California, Project No. 190957. Prepared for 47th Street Properties. 2010 A Cultural Resource Study for the Dickenson Ranch Project, San Bernardino County, California.

Prepared for Dickenson and Son Property Management and Investments. 2010 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Young Family Trust Lot Split Project City of Escondido, California. Prepared for Young Family Trust.
2709
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 10
2010 An Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Jamul Rural Fire Station Auxiliary Access Road Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for TCB. 2010 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for the Citracado Parkway Extension Project, City of Escondido, California. Prepared for AECOM.
2010 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan No. 256 Amendment No. 2, Riverside County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. 2010 A Phase III Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for CA-SDI-16,986, Hidden Meadows, San Diego County, California (TPM 20794). Tuscan Ridge, LLC. 2010 Historic Properties Treatment Plan for the Talega (64 Area) 12kV Conversion Project Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton San Diego County California. Prepared for Synergy Electric Company, Inc. 2010 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Highlands at Warner Springs Project, Warner Springs, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Warner Springs Estates, LLC. 2010 A Cultural Resources Literature Review for the 11099 North Torrey Pines Road Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Touchstone Investments.
2010 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the San Jacinto Poultry Ranch Storage Building Project, San Jacinto, California. Prepared for Moark, LLC.
2010 A Phase III Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-16986, Hidden Meadows, San Diego, California (TPM 20794). Prepared for Tuscan Ridge, LLC. 2010 Cultural Resources Study for the Dos Colinas Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Dos Colinas, LLC.
2010 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Greater Alpine Fire Safe Council Horsethief Vegetation Management Project. Prepared for the Greater Alpine Fire Safe Council. 2010 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Moses Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Brian Moses.
2010 Pottery Canyon Site Archaeological Evaluation Project City of San Diego, California. Prepared for the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department.
2010 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Shabaz Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Negar Shabaz.
2009 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Kramer 453 Project, San Bernardino County, California.

Prepared for LightSource Renewables LLC.
2009 A Cultural Resources Study for the Hronopoulus Residence Project, City of San Diego, California.

Prepared for Andreas Hronopoulus.
2009 A Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the East Point Loma Trunk Sewer Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Southern California Soil and Testing. 2009 A Cultural Resources Study for the McKean SDP Project. San Diego, California. 2009 An Archaeological Assessment for the Rivera-Placentia Project, City of Riverside, California. 2710
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 11
Prepared for Riverside Construction Company.
2009 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Plan for the North Ocean Beach Gateway Project. Prepared for the City of San Diego and KTU+A.
2009 Cultural Resource Letter Report for the Borrego Substation Feasibility Study, Borrego Springs, California. Prepared for RBF Consulting.
2009 A Cultural Resource Study for the Gatto Residence Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Marengo Martin Architects Inc.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Central Feeder Connection Project, San Bernardino, California.

Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Clay Street Connection Project, Riverside, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Green Hills Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Atlas Investments, LLC.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the La Sierra Pipeline Project, Riverside, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the East Point Loma Trunk Sewer Project. Prepared for Southern California Soil & Testing.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Mockingbird Connection Project, Riverside, California.

Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates.
2009 A Cultural Resource Report for the Mesquite Lake Treatment Plan Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for Albert A. Webb and Associates. 2008 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the 28220 Highridge Road Development Project, Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Prepared for REC Development. 2008 Wild Goose Expansion 3 Project Butte County, California Colusa County, California. Prepared for Niska Gas Storage LLC.

2008 Class III Cultural Resource Survey for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Four Railway Bridge Renewal Project, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for BNSF Railway Company. 2008 I-80 Colfax Site Cultural Resource Records Search Report, Placer County, California. Prepared for Granite Construction Company.

2008 I-80 Gold Run Site Cultural Resource Records Search Report, Placer County, California. Prepared for Granite Construction Company.
2008 Cultural Resource Monitoring at 31431 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California.

Prepared for Herman Weissker, Inc.
2008 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Snow White Pumice Mine, Hinkley, California. Prepared for U.S.

Mining and Minerals Corporation.
2007 Nodule Industries of North Coastal San Diego: Change and Stasis in 10,000 Years of Lithic 2711
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 12
Technology. Masters thesis on file, San Diego State University. 2007 Cultural Resource Inventory for Empire Homes (APN 104-180-04), Lake Forest, California. Prepared for Empire Homes.
2007 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for APN 104-200-09, Beaumont, California. Prepared for Mary Chan.
2007 Cultural Resource Inventory for Empire Homes (APN 104-180-04), Lake Forest, California. Prepared for Empire Homes.
2006 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Data Recovery Program for CA-SDI-8694, and Indexing and Preservation Program Study for CA-SDI-8303 and CA-SDI-8797 Locus C, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for City of Carlsbad.
2005 Grand Pacific Resorts Data Recovery and Index Sample Program for CA-SDI-8797, Area A, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Grand Pacific Resorts Inc. 2004 "Near the Harris Site Quarry" Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Preservation Program for CASDI-13028, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Harbrecht Development, L.P. 2004 Cultural Resource Survey and Boundary Test Report for the Lilac Ranch Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Empire Companies.

2003 Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Preservation Program for CA-SDI-12027, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Harbrecht Development Inc.

2002 Data Recovery Program for the Pacbell Site CA-SDI-5633, San Marcos, California. Prepared for Joseph Wong Design Associates.
2001 McCrink Ranch Cultural Resource Test Program Additional Information for Selected Sites, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2001 The Quail Ridge Project Cultural Resource Test Program, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
2000 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the North Sand Sheet Full Buildout Program, Owens Lake, California. Prepared for CH2MHill.

1995 Final Report: Archaeological Investigations Conducted for the Abalone Cove Dewatering Wells, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Environmental Services.
1995 Final Report: A Class III Intensive Survey of a 100-Acre Sand and Gravel Mining Area, Imperial County, California. Prepared for the Lilburn Corporation. 1994 Final Report: Data Recovery Excavations at Five Late Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Along the Los Trancos Access Road, Newport Coast Planned Community, Orange County, California.

Prepared for the Coastal Community Builders, a division of The Irvine Company.

Contributing Author
2019 Cultural Resources Study for the 3868-3900 Sepulveda Boulevard Project, City of Culver City, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Sepulveda Suites, Inc. 2712
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 13
2019 Final Archaeological Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Westin Hotel and Timeshare Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Commerce Logistics Center Project, 5200 Sheila Street, Commerce, California 90040. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resource Study for the McElwain Project (SPL-2019-00565), Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Murrieta Development II, LLC. 2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California. Prepared for Murrieta Development II, LLC.
2018 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Emerald Acres Project, Winchester, Riverside County. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc.
2018 A Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Golden City Project, Tracts 28532-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5 and Tract 34445, City of Murrieta, California. Prepared for North Murrieta Community, LLC. 2018 An Archaeological/Historical Study for the Citracado Business Park West Project, City of Escondido. Prepared for Pacific Harmony Grove Development. 2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for the Westin Hotel and Timeshare Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc. 2015 A Class III Cultural Resource Study for the Habitat for Humanity Project, Perris, California. Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley.
2015 A Phase II Cultural Resource Assessment for the Munro Valley Solar Project, Inyo County, California.

Prepared for Prepared for Ecos Energy, LLC.
2014 An Extended Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Belvedere-Webster Project, City of Poway, California (APN 323-010-26-00). Prepared for Webster Realty Group. 2014 Cultural Resources Study for the Brook Forest Conservation Bank Project, Valley Center, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Brook Forest, LLC. 2014 A Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Crystal View Lane Project, Poway, California. Prepared for Mark Catrambone.
2014 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Muscat Project, Poway, California (TPM 13-002; APN 278- 180-44). Prepared for Mr. Ed Muscat.
2014 An Extended Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the Mulholland Highway Improvement Project, Cities of Calabasas and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. City of Calabasas Public Works Department.
2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 9th and Broadway Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Bridge Housing Corporation.
2013 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Cisterra Sempra Tower Project San Diego, California.

Prepared for Eilar Associates, Inc.
2013 A Section 106 (NHPA) Cultural Resources Study for the Toscana Project, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Forestar Toscana, LLC.
2713
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 14
2013 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Gaslamp Hotel Project. Prepared for The Robert Green Company.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Pinnacle International 15th and Island Project. Prepared for Pinnacle International.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Horton Plaza Park Improvement Project. Prepared for the City of San Diego.
2012 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the T-Mobile West, LLC Telecommunications Candidate SD02867C (Presidio Park). Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates. 2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Old Police Headquarters Project. Prepared for Terramar Retail Centers.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Knight Residence Project. Prepared for Mr. Dennis Knight. 2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the 9th and Broadway Project. Prepared for Bridge Housing Corporation.
2012 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Blue Sky Project. Prepared for Gray Development. 2011 An Archaeological Study for 1887 Viking Way Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Island Architects.
2011 A Cultural Resource Evaluation Program for the Otay Hills Quarry Project, San Diego County, California, Log No. 93-19-006J; P04-004; RPO4-001. Prepared for EnviroMINE. 2010 A Cultural Resource Evaluation Program for the Batchelder Lot Split Project, San Diego County, California, TPM 21177; KIVA PROJECT 10-0125593; APNs 247-010-10, -13. Prepared for David Batchelder.
2010 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Program for the Butterfield Trails Ranch Project, Valley Center, San Diego County, California, TM 5551, P 08-028, GPA 06-007, REZ 06-010, LOG NO. 06-08-033. Prepared for Wayne B. Hilbig.
2008 Lithic Analysis for Thirteen Sites Along the Transwestern Phoenix Expansion Project, Loops A and B.

Prepared for Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
2005 Cultural Resource Survey and Testing for the Star Ranch Property, San Diego, California. 2004 Cultural Resource Test Report for the Palomar Point Project: Site CA-SDI-16205, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Lanikai Management Corp.
2004 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Canyon View Project, Carlsbad, California.

Prepared for Shapouri & Associates.
2004 Cultural Resource Test Report for the Yamamoto Property: Site SDM-W-2046, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Cunningham Consultants, Inc.
2004 Historical Resources Report for the Kuta and Mascari Properties, Otay Mesa, California. Prepared for Centex Homes.
2004 Cultural Resource Monitor and Test Report for the Encina Power Plant Project, Carlsbad, 2714
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 15
California. Prepared for Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

2004 Cultural Resource Test Report for Site CA-SDI-16788, Otay Mesa, California. Prepared for Otay Mesa Property, L.P.

2004 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Lonestar Project, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Mesa Property, L.P. 2003 Cultural Resource Mitigation Program for the Torrey Ranch Site CA-SDI-5325, San Diego, California. Prepared for Garden Communities.
2003 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Johnson Canyon Parcel, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Mesa Property, L.P. 2002 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Plan for the Shaw Project: Sites CA-SDI-13025 and CA-SDI13067, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2001 Archaeological Test Program for CA-SDI-14112 Mesa Norte Project, San Diego, California.

Prepared for Hunsaker & Associates.
2001 The Vista-Oceanside Cultural Resource Survey and Test Program, Vista, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for the Wilson Property, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad.

2001 Cultural Resource Test Plan for the Oceanside-Escondido Project, County of San Diego, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for the Kramer Junction Expansion Project Adelanto, California.

Prepared for AMEC.
2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for CA-SDI-12508 San Diego, California (LDR No. 99-1331).

Prepared for Garden Communities.
2000 Archaeological Testing of Prehistoric Sites CASDI-14115 and CA-SDI-14116 for The Mesa Grande Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Solana Mesa Partners, LLC. 2000 Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Wetmore Property, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Mr. Andy Campbell.
2000 The Torrey Ranch Cultural Resource Test Program, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Garden Communities.
2000 Cultural Resource Test Results for the Otay Mesa Generating Project. Prepared for the California Energy Commission and Otay Mesa Generating Company, LCC.

2000 The Eternal Hills Cultural Resource Survey and Test Program, City of Oceanside, California.

Prepared for Eternal Hills Memorial Park.
2000 The Quail Ridge Cultural Resource Test Program, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning Inc.
2000 Cultural Resource Testing Program for CA-SDI-5652/H and CA-SDI-9474H SR 78/Rancho Del Oro 2715
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 16
Interchange Project, Oceanside, California. Prepared for Tetratech Inc. 2000 Cultural Resource Test Results for a Portion of CA-SDI-8654 (Kuebler Ranch) Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2000 Historical/Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Program for Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-48, Locus C Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, California. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southwest Division.
2000 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the Palomar College Science Building Project, San Marcos, California. Prepared for Parsons Engineering Science Inc. 1999 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Village of Ystagua Water Main Break City of San Diego, California. Prepared for the City of San Diego Water Department. 1999 The Effect of Projectile Point Size on Atlatl Dart Efficiency in Lithic Technology Vol. 24, No 1 p (27- 37).
1999 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway Project, San Marcos, California. Prepared for City of San Marcos.

1999 5000 Years of Occupation: Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment Program for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project City of Carlsbad, California. Prepared or Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
1999 Silver Oaks Estates Cultural Resource Enhanced Survey and Test Report for a Portion of CA-SDI7202 San Diego, California. Prepared for Helix Environmental Planning Inc. 1999 Historical Archaeological Test of a portion of CA-SDI-8303 for the Faraday Road Extension Carlsbad, California. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad. 1999 Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Arterial Streets Alternative San Diego County, California. Prepared for MLF/San Diego Association of Govt.

1998 Archaeological Test Report for a Portion of CA-SDI-9115/SDM-W-122 Carlsbad, California.

Prepared for Industrial Developments International.
1998 Rainforest Ranch Cultural Resource Survey and Significance Test for Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI14932, CA-SDI-14937, CA-SDI-14938, and CA-SDI-14946 County of San Diego, California.

Prepared for the Boys and Girls Club of Inland North County. 1998 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway Project San Marcos, California.
1998 Final Report: Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Sterling Property, Carlsbad, California.

Prepared for SPT Holdings LCC.
1996 Final Report: Archaeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property Carlsbad, California.

Prepared for Gene Huber.
1996 Final Report: Results of Phase II Test Excavations and Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at Nine Archaeological Sites Within the Newport Coast Planned Community Phase III Entitlement Area, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, a division of The Irvine Company.
2716
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 17
1995 Preliminary Report: Phase II Test Results From Nine Prehistoric Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional County Park. Prepared for EDAW, Inc. 1995 Final Report: A Phase II Test Excavation at CA-ORA-136, Block 800 City of Newport Beach, Orange County California. Prepared for the Irvine Apartment Communities. 2717
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
2718
Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project

APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
2719
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com April 18, 2025 Project No. 25040-01
Mr. Dave Waters
Genstar Development Company
12770 El Camino Real, Ste. 220
San Diego, CA 92130
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of Mass Graded Site and Grading Plan Review of Proposed 10-Acre “Esperanza Townhomes” Residential Development, Buildings 1 through 28, Tentative Tract No. 20730, located North of Eucalyptus & Amherst Avenues, City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California

In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a geotechnical site evaluation of the mass graded site and grading plan review for the proposed “Esperanza Townhomes” multi-family residential development, Buildings 1 through 28, 161 unit, Tentative Tract No. 20730, located north of the intersection of Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California. This report summarizes the current geotechnical conditions and presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations with regards to the proposed development.

If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Respectfully Submitted,
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.

Ryan Douglas, PE, GE 3147 Katie Maes, CEG 2216
Vice President of Engineering Director of Geology
RLD/KTM/amm
Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy)
2720
Project No. 25040-01 Page i April 18, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Geologic Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Site Specific Geology & Generalized Subsurface Conditions ...................................................... 5

2.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.4 Faulting ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.4.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ................................................................................. 8

2.4.2 Lateral Spreading ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Oversized Material ...................................................................................................................................... 9

2.6 Expansion Potential ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.7 Organic Rich Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................10

4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................11

4.1 Site Earthwork .......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Grading and Fill Processing .................................................................................................. 11

4.1.2 Material for Fill .......................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Placement and Compaction of Fills .................................................................................... 13

4.1.4 Trench and Conventional Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ................... 14

4.1.5 Temporary Excavations ......................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................. 15

4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters ..................................... 15

4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters ................................ 15

4.2.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance ............. 17

4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines ............................................................................................ 18

4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance ................................................................................................ 19

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls ............................................................................... 20

4.5 Soil Corrosivity .......................................................................................................................................... 21

4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control .......................................................................... 22

4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections ................................................................... 23

4.8 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 24

4.9 Geotechnical Plan Review ..................................................................................................................... 25

4.10 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ................................................. 25

5.0 LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................26 2721
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Project No. 25040-01 Page ii April 18, 2025

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 3)
Figure 2 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (rear of text) Tables
Table 1 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 7)
Table 2 – Provisional Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Slab Design (Page 17) Table 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved On-site or Imported Sandy Soils (Page 20) Table 4 – Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section Options (Page 23) Table 5 – Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential (Page 24) Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Geotechnical Exploration Logs
Appendix C – Field and Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Sheet
Sheet 1 – Geotechnical Map (In Pocket)
2722
Project No. 25040-01 Page 1 April 18, 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed multi-family residential site, Buildings 1 through 28 and associated improvements of Tract 18380, located in the City of Ontario, California. The approximately 10-acre site is bound by residential development and existing streets including Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues to the south and Chatham and Clifton to the north. Refer to the Site Location Map (Figure 1).

The purpose of our study was to provide a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the mass graded pad conditions relative to the proposed residential development. As part of our scope of work, we have: 1) reviewed available geotechnical background information including in-house regional geologic maps and published geotechnical literature pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed excavation, testing, and sampling of regular-spaced test pits with backhoe across the site for evaluation of mass graded conditions; 3) nuclear gauge testing of in-situ graded fill placed under observation and testing by others; 4) laboratory testing of samples for design parameters and organic content testing of the compacted fill soils; and 5) prepared this geotechnical summary report presenting our findings and preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the proposed development.

1.2 Background
The subject site was originally part of the larger overall proposed “Esperanza West” residential development that covered areas north and south of a previous alignment of Eucalyptus Avenue.

The northern portion of the area, encompassing the subject site, was reportedly used for agriculture since 1938, specifically “row crops”, while the offsite southern portion was utilized as a dairy farm. Previous uses of the overall area were reviewed as part of the referenced methane site assessment by LGC Geo-Environmental (2014). The methane site assessment concluded that the subject parcel was not impacted by previous dairy farm uses and is not within the limits of a Methane Gas Potential Area.

As the surrounding areas have been developed over time, it is our understanding that the southern portion of the subject site was utilized as a borrow area for the surrounding developments. The site was eventually entitled for development with the referenced Updated Geotechnical Report and Manure Evaluation by LGC Geo-Environmental (2017) for the larger “Esperanza West” and “Esperanza East” proposed development. The report further confirmed that the subject parcel was not a part of previous dairy uses in the region. Recommendations were provided for earthwork of the site, aka Lot 1 (School Site) of Tract 18380, to a mass grade design with drainage to the southmost corner.

Mass grading of the site commenced during approximately 2020 as documented in the referenced Reliance Letter by LGC Geo-Environmental (2020). The mass grading operations reportedly included remedial grading to elevations between 695 feet and 698 feet and placement of compacted fill to existing grades, with exception of the northwest quadrant left low for intermittent soils import. Excess soils from specifically identified nearby development sites were reportedly end-dumped in the area left low, and presumably properly compacted over time. No as-graded report was available for review, therefore LGC Geotechnical’s site 2723
Project No. 25040-01 Page 2 April 18, 2025
evaluation presented herein was focused on quality of the removals, quality of the fill to the existing grades, and verification of organics percentage within the compacted fill.

1.3 Project Description
The site is currently vacant, with a generally tightly compacted surface throughout, with light grasses. Drainage across the mass graded pad area flows from the northeast at elevation 708 to a low of approximately 700 at the southwest, to an existing storm drain inlet on-site. Based on the Preliminary Grading Plan by Walden & Associates dated January 24, 2025, the proposed development will consist of 161 units within 28 multi-family buildings, associated streets, recreation center, pool, and park.

Design grades for the proposed development are relatively close to existing mass graded elevations and will be achieved with minor cut-fill grading and import of soils for low areas. 2724
Site Location
FIGURE 1
Site Location Map
DATE April 2025
ENG. / GEOL.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE

RLD / KTM
Not to Scale
Genstar, Ontario
25040-01
2725
Project No. 25040-01 Page 4 April 18, 2025

1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation
A subsurface evaluation was performed by LGC Geo-Environmental for a larger overall area prior to mass grading of the subject site (2017). Their investigation included excavation of test pits and a boring on-site and two closely adjacent. The boring logs are provided in Appendix B, approximate locations provided on the Geotechnical Map (Sheet 1).

The recent site evaluation by LGC Geotechnical consisted of excavation of a total of 16 test pits in an approximate grid formation throughout the site by a project geologist, using a Caterpillar backhoe with a three-feet wide bucket to expose the compacted fill and the contact with native soils. Existing fill soils were visually evaluated and probed, and a soil technician took intermittent field density tests with a nuclear gauge to gain an opinion about fill compaction. Numerous samples were collected at vertical intervals within test pits in order to perform laboratory testing for moisture content and organic content. Results of field density testing are presented in Appendix C along with laboratory test results, and moisture and organic content testing results are presented on the test pit logs, Appendix B. Recommendations for remedial measures during future rough grading to project design grades were determined based on a combination of observations during test pit evaluation and results of field and laboratory testing.

Test pits were backfilled and compacted back to existing grades at completion of the field evaluation.

1.5 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing on samples collected during the recent subsurface investigation was performed including organic percentage, expansion index, maximum density and optimum moisture, and corrosion testing.

The following is a summary of the laboratory test results:
• Forty-eight organic content tests were performed in an approximate grid pattern within compacted fill soils. Results are presented on test pit logs, Appendix B. The average organic testing percentage for the total of 48 tests performed was approximately 2 percent. • Three expansion potential tests were performed on finished grade soils and indicated an expansion index value ranged approximately 2 to 5, corresponding to “Very Low” expansion potential.
• Maximum density tests on three bulk samples indicated maximum densities of previously placed compacted fill soils ranges from 125.5 to 129.5 pcf, with optimum moistures from 8.5 to 11.5 percent.
• Corrosion testing of finished grade soils indicated soluble sulfate content less than approximately 0.01 percent by weight or less and a chloride content of 0.006 percent by weight or less.

A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. 2726
Project No. 25040-01 Page 5 April 18, 2025

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Geologic Conditions
The subject site is located south of the San Gabriel Mountains within the broad alluvial plain of the Santa Ana River Basin, within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. Specifically, the site is located within the northern portion of the Perris Block, a geologic zone consisting of granitics overlain by sedimentary deposits that are bounded by active faults including the northwest-trending Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone at the southwest and the northwest-trending San Jacinto Fault Zone at the northeast (Morton, 2002). The roughly rectangular Perris Block is transected by the southwest-trending Santa Ana River that passes several miles south of the subject site.

2.2 Site-Specific Geology & Generalized Subsurface Conditions The site generally consists of engineered fill placed over alluvial deposits. Mass grading of the site was performed under observation and testing by LGC Geo-Environmental (2020). Based on previous reports and regional mapping (Morton, 2002), the subject site is underlain by Holocene- to Pleistocene-age eolian (wind-blown) sedimentary deposits over young alluvium.

The material is described on-site as sand and silty sand, with some sandy silt, generally fine to medium grained, yellowish brown, gray, and olive, dry to damp, medium dense to dense. The materials below the eolian deposits are young alluvial fan deposits, described on-site as sand, silty sand and sandy silt, generally fine-grained, yellowish to orangish brown, gray, olive, dry to very moist, medium dense to very dense and stiff to very stiff.

During rough grading, the upper, potentially compressible soils were recommended to be removed to competent alluvium (LGC Geo-Environmental, 2017), as was generally confirmed/observed in our test pits. As indicated on our field exploration logs, compacted fill soils generally consist of silty sand with localized areas of clayey to gravelly sand, medium dense to very dense, slightly moist. The thickness of existing engineered fill was encountered at depths of approximately 3.5 feet to greater than 10 feet within the mass graded pad.

2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during the site investigation to 51 feet below ground (LGC Geo-Environmental, 2017). Groundwater was reportedly estimated to be at a depth of 120 to 130 feet below ground based on available water well data compiled by LGC Geo-Environmental, 2017.

Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present due to local seepage caused by irrigation and/or recent precipitation. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed. 2727
Project No. 25040-01 Page 6 April 18, 2025

2.3 Seismic Design Criteria
The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code-based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site-specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7-16. Representative site coordinates of latitude 33.9908 degrees north and longitude -117.5629 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7-16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site-specific ground motions.

A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.68 at a distance of 13.60 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion. A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 475-year average return period (Design Earthquake) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.70 at a distance of

17.23 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014).

Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.735g (SEAOC, 2025). The design PGA is equal to 0.490g (2/3 of PGAM).
2728
Project No. 25040-01 Page 7 April 18, 2025
TABLE 1
Seismic Design Parameters
Selected Parameters from 2022 CBC,
Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads
Seismic
Design
Values
Notes/Exceptions
Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a
“Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7
Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7
Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration
for Short Periods) 1.614g From SEAOC, 2025
S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral
Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.582g From SEAOC, 2025 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.000
For Simplified Design Procedure
of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa
shall be taken as 1.4 (Section

12.14.8.1)
Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.718
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SMS for Site Class D
[Note: SMS = FaSS] 1.614g -
SM1 for Site Class D
[Note: SM1 = FvS1] 0.999g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SDS for Site Class D
[Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.076g -
SD1 for Site Class D
[Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.666g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.941 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.918 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16.

2.4 Faulting
Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. Their purpose was to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults, resulting in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated along the traces of active faults within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards 2729
Project No. 25040-01 Page 8 April 18, 2025
associated with active faulting by identifying the location of active faults and allowing for a setback from the zone of previous ground rupture.

The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (AlquistPriolo) and no faults are identified on the site (CGS, 2025). The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults that may impact the site include the Whittier-Elsinore, Cucamonga, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones, among others.

Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.

2.4.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density noncohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event.

Based on the previous field evaluation data performed by others (references), the site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to a lack of groundwater and the relatively dense native soils in the upper 50 feet; therefore, liquefaction potential is considered very low.

2.4.2 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.
2730
Project No. 25040-01 Page 9 April 18, 2025
Due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet, very low potential for liquefaction, and lack of a nearby “free face” condition, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low.

2.5 Oversized Material
Oversized materials (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) are not expected to be encountered during the minor site grading. If encountered, recommendations are provided for appropriate handling of oversized materials in Appendix D. If feasible, exporting oversized materials may be considered. Incorporating oversized materials into “rock fills” (windrows, rock blankets or individual rock burial) is not feasible due to the limited depth of rough grading.

2.6 Expansion Potential
Based on the results of previous laboratory testing (LGC Geo-Environmental, 2017), our experience in the area, and results of recent expansion index testing presented herein, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be confirmed at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades should be utilized to confirm final foundation design.

2.7 Organic Rich Soils
Based on our review of the geotechnical design report (LGC Geo-Environmental, 2017), the consultant who graded the site recommended that the high and low organic “soils” be blended and mixed to achieve 2 percent organics or less in the compacted fill. To verify the results of the mass grading operation, we collected a total of 48 soil samples throughout the existing on-site fill to determine their organic content (based on ASTM 2974). Organic percentage is indicated on test pit logs at the depths of collection, presented in Appendix B. The organic content of the majority of samples ranged from approximately 1.2 percent to 2.7 percent, indicating relatively low organics, with locally higher organic contents of 8.8 percent within TP-13 and 4.8 percent within TP-11. Remedial grading is recommended for field evaluation of the two locally high percentage of organic content (Refer to Geotechnical Map), and the upper two inches of existing grasses and rootlets that have accumulated over time are recommended to be cleared and removed from the site prior to future rough grading operations in order to avoid blending additional organics into future fill. Refer to Section 4.1.1 for recommendations. 2731
Project No. 25040-01 Page 10 April 18, 2025

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are implemented.

The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors that may affect future development of the site:
• On site soils consist of engineered fill placed over alluvial deposits under observation and testing by LGC Geo-Environmental, as nominally reported in the referenced letter (2020). Compacted fill materials observed by LGC Geotechnical generally consist of silty sand with localized areas of clayey to gravelly sand, medium dense to very dense, slightly moist. • Based on the previously mass-graded condition of the site, recommended remedial measures are limited to removal and recompaction of weathered, near-surface, previously placed engineered fill, and few localized areas of removal as deep as 6 feet. Locally deeper removals were determined based on field observations, field density testing, and laboratory test results. • The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (aka “AP Zone”); and no “Holocene-active” faults have been identified to cross the site. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. • From a geotechnical perspective, onsite soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as general compacted fill provided, they are screened of organic materials, construction debris and oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension).
• Groundwater was not encountered during previous subsurface evaluations and was estimated to be a depth of more than 120 feet below existing grade.
• Based on the previous field evaluation data performed by others (references), the site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to a lack of groundwater and the relatively dense native soils in the upper 50 feet; therefore, liquefaction potential is considered very low. • Based on the results of preliminary laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have “Very Low” expansion potential. Final design expansion potential must be confirmed at the completion of rough/precise grading.
2732
Project No. 25040-01 Page 11 April 18, 2025

4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner.

It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2022 CBC requirements. With regard to the potential occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)].

Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvements may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that although our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions, they cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions.

The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions.

4.1 Site Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the subject site will consist of minor grading, import of soils, utility installation, street improvements, and foundation construction. We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Ontario grading requirements, and the 2022 CBC. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede previous recommendations.

4.1.1 Site Preparation, Remedial Grading, and Fill Processing Because the subject site was already mass graded as nominally reported in LGC GeoEnvironmental, 2020, and generally verified with our recent site investigation, it is our opinion that the majority of fill placed to the current mass grade design remains acceptable for the intended uses with exception of specific localized areas of recommended removals as follows.

The site has undergone near-surface weathering and limited vegetation growth over the last five years of vacancy. In general, we recommend that the upper, organic-rich couple of inches (vegetation and dense rootlets) should be fully cleared and removed/exported 2733
Project No. 25040-01 Page 12 April 18, 2025
from the site. Additionally, soils with organic contents higher than 3 percent are recommended to be temporarily removed, mixed and blended with “clean” soils, and placed as compacted fill with an organic content of approximately 2 percent or less.

Several areas have been identified as high concentrations of organics including the soils in the vicinity of test pits TP-11 and TP-13, refer to our Test Pit Logs (Appendix B) and our Geotechnical Map (Sheet 1) for recommendations. Import should consist of “clean” soils with organic contents 2 percent or less. We recommend the geotechnical consultant be present during grading to observe the mixing of the onsite soils and perform periodic testing of the compacted fill. Organic materials shall be thoroughly mixed such that no nesting of organic materials occurs.

Based on near-surface weathering, a minimum of 1 foot of the existing grades on-site will require temporary removal and re-compaction to achieve design grades. Areas of recommended removal depths greater 1 feet were identified from our field observations within test pits, results of field density testing, and results of organic content and moisture content testing. Therefore, temporary removal and recompaction is recommended to range from approximately 1 to 6 feet below existing grades, refer to Geotechnical Map (Sheet 1) for recommended depths. Alternatively, if the design cut is determined to exceed the removal of unsuitable weathered near-surface older fill materials, the cut may be left at grade. The temporary removal and recompaction depths will need to be confirmed by the geotechnical consultant during rough/precise grading based on the observed field conditions.

Removal bottoms and/or reprocessing of acceptable near-surface soils should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement or construction. Areas prepared to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum of 6 to 8 inches, brought to at least optimum-moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). Deeper reprocessing of the previously placed compacted fill may be required based on the conditions observed during post-grading.

4.1.2 Material for Fill
From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris and oversized materials (material greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension).

From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils should consist of clean, free draining, relatively granular soils of very low expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on ASTM D4829) and no particles larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension.

Source samples of planned importation should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of 4 working days prior to any planned importation for required laboratory testing.

Retaining wall backfill should consist of imported sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per ASTM Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829).

Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material 2734
Project No. 25040-01 Page 13 April 18, 2025
greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Portions of the onsite soil may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their fines content (i.e., silt and clay content).

Therefore, either select grading and stockpiling and/or import of suitable sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above will be required.

Aggregate base should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials, Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base and/or the City of Ontario/County of San Bernardino requirements.

4.1.3 Placement and Compaction of Fills
Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Soils are present that will require additional moisture in order to achieve the required compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils may also be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills.

The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills.

Fill placed on any slopes greater than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be properly keyed and benched into firm and competent soils as it is placed in lifts. During backfill of temporary excavations, fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils as it is placed in lifts and compacted.

Aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (or per the city requirements, whichever is higher) at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557.

If gap-graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observation by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gapgraded rock is required to be entirely wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved alternative) or at the very minimum to be vertically separated from the trench backfill with filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill. 2735
Project No. 25040-01 Page 14 April 18, 2025

4.1.4 Trench and Conventional Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction The onsite materials may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided the soils are screened of organic matter, rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter and construction debris. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 12 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations.

If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 20 or greater (per California Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Sand grains should be from a natural source with rounded shape.

Manufactured sand from crushed rock or recycled material is not suitable for jetting/flooding as the grains are typically angular in shape and do not densify well enough with these methods. Manufactured sand can be used as shading material when mechanical compaction efforts are used. Subsequent trench backfill should be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). If any ¾-inch rock is used for backfill, see Section 4.1.3 for filter fabric requirements.

Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.2.

The limits of select sandy backfill should extend at minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater (Figure 2). Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted.

In backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements.

A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations.

4.1.5 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Based on the reference geotechnical reports, site soils are anticipated to be OSHA Type “B” soils. Sandy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should 2736
Project No. 25040-01 Page 15 April 18, 2025
be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person,” required by OSHA standards, to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations.

Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation.

Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical.

Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability.

Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain.

It should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring and/or ABC slot cut parameters will be provided.

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
Provided that the remedial grading recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the residential structures using a conventional or post-tensioned foundation system. Laboratory testing indicates that the site soils have a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829), however, the foundation designer should take into consideration the total and differential settlement in his/her design. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading.

Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Recommended soil bearing and estimated settlement due to structural loads are provided in Section 4.4.

4.2.1 Provisional Conventional Foundation Design Parameters Due to the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils, the foundation/structural engineer may design a conventional foundation system that is tied together based upon the anticipated dead and live loads (wind, seismic) that will be imparted by the structure. The recommendations provided in the “Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance” section may be utilized in the design of a rigid slab-on-grade conventional foundation designed in accordance with Section 1808 of the 2022 C.B.C.

4.2.2 Provisional Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Parameters The geotechnical parameters provided herein may be used for post-tensioned slab foundations. These parameters have been determined in general accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI, 2012) Standard Requirements (PTI DC 10.5), referenced in Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC. In utilizing these parameters, the foundation engineer 2737
Project No. 25040-01 Page 16 April 18, 2025
should design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable deflection criteria of applicable codes and the requirements of the structural designer/architect.

Other types of stiff slabs may be used in place of the CBC post-tensioned slab design provided that, in the opinion of the foundation structural designer, the alternative type of slab is at least as stiff and strong as that designed by the CBC/PTI method to resist expansive soils.

Our design parameters are based on our experience with similar residential projects and the anticipated nature of the soil (with respect to expansion potential). Please note that implementation of our recommendations will not eliminate foundation movement (and related distress) should the moisture content of the subgrade soils fluctuate. It is the intent of these recommendations to help maintain the integrity of the proposed structures and reduce (not eliminate) movement, based upon the anticipated site soil conditions. Should future owners not properly maintain the areas surrounding the foundation, for example by overwatering, then we anticipate for expansive soils the maximum differential movement of the perimeter of the foundation to the center of the foundation to be on the order of a couple of inches. Soils of lower expansion potential are anticipated to show less movement.
2738
Project No. 25040-01 Page 17 April 18, 2025
TABLE 2
Provisional Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Slab Design Parameter
PT Slab with
Perimeter
Footing
PT Mat with
Thickened Edge
Expansion Index Very Low1 Very Low1
Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 -20
Constant Soil Suction PF 3.9 PF 3.9
Center Lift
Edge moisture variation distance, em
Center lift, ym

9.0 feet
< 0.25 inch

9.0 feet

0.25 inch
Edge Lift
Edge moisture variation distance, em
Edge lift, ym

6.1 feet

0.25 inch

6.1 feet

0.25 inch
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming
presoaking as indicated below) 200 pci 200 pci
Minimum perimeter footing/thickened edge
embedment below finish grade 12 inches 6 inches
Perimeter foundation reinforcement N/A2 N/A2
Presoak (moisture conditioning) 100% of Optimum
to 12 inches
100% of Optimum
to 12 inches

1. Assumed for preliminary design purposes. Further evaluation is needed at the completion of grading.

2. Recommendations for foundation reinforcement and slab thickness are ultimately the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer based upon geotechnical criteria and structural engineering considerations.

3. Recommendations for sand below slabs have traditionally been included with geotechnical foundation recommendations, although they are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. The sand layer requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction”.

4. Recommendations for vapor retarders below slabs are also the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer and should be provided in accordance with applicable code requirements.

4.2.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation and Maintenance
Moisture conditioning of the subgrade soils is recommended prior to trenching the foundation. The duration of this process varies greatly based on the chosen method and is also dependent on factors such as soil type and weather conditions. Time duration for presoaking from completion of rough grading to trenching of foundations should be accounted for in the construction schedule (typically a few days for Very Low expansion soils). The recommendations specific to the anticipated site soil conditions, including recommended presoak, are presented in Table 2. The subgrade moisture condition of 2739
Project No. 25040-01 Page 18 April 18, 2025
the building pad soils should be maintained at near-optimum moisture content up to the time of concrete placement. This moisture content should be maintained around the immediate perimeter of the slab during construction and up to occupancy of the homes.

The geotechnical parameters provided herein assume that if the areas adjacent to the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage and adequately maintained so that ponding, which causes significant moisture changes below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Plants should only be provided with sufficient irrigation for life and not overwatered to saturate subgrade soils. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the foundation should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, future owners/property management personnel should be made aware of the potential negative influences of trees and/or other large vegetation. Roots that extend near the vicinity of foundations can cause distress to foundations. Future owners (and the owner’s landscape architect) should not plant trees/large shrubs closer to the foundations than a distance equal to half the mature height of the tree or 20 feet, whichever is more conservative unless specifically provided with root barriers to prevent root growth below the building foundation.

It is the owner’s responsibility to perform periodic maintenance during hot and dry periods to ensure that adequate watering has been provided to keep soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation. Future owners and property management personnel should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a constant level of soil-moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing potentially expansive soils to become too dry. Expansive soils can undergo shrinkage during drying, and swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This can result in distress to building structures and hardscape improvements. The builder should provide these recommendations to future owners and property management personnel.

4.2.4 Slab Underlayment Guidelines
The following recommendations are for informational purposes since they are unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation. Some post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation; the foundation engineer must assume soil moisture to be present below the slab. The following recommendations may be superseded by the foundation engineer and/or owner.

In general, interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a minimum 10-15 mil thick vapor retarder, which has a water vapor transmission rate (permeance) of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96, and meets the applicable code requirements (ASTM E 1745).
2740
Project No. 25040-01 Page 19 April 18, 2025
It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor retarder systems are properly installed in accordance with the project plans and manufacturer’s specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures prior to and as a result of concrete placement. Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings.

The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer) in conjunction with the vapor retarder is necessary or required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect. However, we often observe the membrane to be sandwiched between a layer of sand, 1-inch above and 1-inch below. Sand layers should be installed, where applicable, in accordance with ACI Publication 302 – “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction.”

4.3 Soil Bearing and Lateral Resistance
Provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface.

This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 150 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. A post-tensioned mat foundation a minimum of 6 inches below lowest adjacent grade may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200 psf. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads).

In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be 1-inch or less. Differential static settlement may be taken as half of the static settlement (i.e., ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet).

Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture retarder, the allowable friction coefficient should be provided by the manufacturer. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 340 pcf (maximum of 3,400 psf) for short duration seismic loading. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. For a 2:1 sloping condition an allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 100 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 1,000 psf may be used for lateral resistance. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 130 pcf to a maximum of 1,300 psf for short duration seismic or wind loading. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, 2741
Project No. 25040-01 Page 20 April 18, 2025
respectively. The structural designer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety and/or load factors in their design.

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls
Lateral earth pressures for approved sandy soils meeting indicated project recommendations (Section 4.1.2) are provided below. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf per foot of depth (or pcf). These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing.

The following lateral earth pressures are presented on Table 3 are for backfilled retaining walls using approved select granular soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D-421/422) and a maximum Expansion Index of 20 (per ASTM D-4829). Portions of the onsite soil may not be suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their fines content (i.e., silt and clay content). Therefore, either select grading and stockpiling and/or import of suitable sandy soils meeting the criteria outlined above will be required. The retaining wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required sandy soil backfill criteria.

TABLE 3
Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved On-site or Imported Sandy Soils Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill
Approved Sandy Soils Approved Sandy Soils
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 70
If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.” The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer.

Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining wall. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 85 pounds per square foot (psf) due to normal street vehicle traffic, if applicable. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical consultant for any required geotechnical input in estimating surcharge 2742
Project No. 25040-01 Page 21 April 18, 2025
loads.

Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. To reduce, but not eliminate, saturation of near-surface (upper approximate 1- foot) soils in front of the retaining walls, the perforated subdrain pipe should be located as low as possible behind the retaining wall. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. In general, we do not recommend retaining wall outlet pipes be connected to area drains. If subdrains are connected to area drains, special care and information should be provided to homeowners to maintain these drains. Typical retaining wall drainage is illustrated in Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water containing soluble salts migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential.

If retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height are proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact LGC Geotechnical for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration and height of the planned retaining wall structures.

Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.4. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.

4.5 Soil Corrosivity
Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary.

Corrosion testing of near-surface bulk samples indicated a soluble sulfate content ranging from approximately 0.006 to 0.010 percent and chloride content ranging from approximately 37 to 60 parts per million (ppm). Based on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2021), soils are considered corrosive to structural elements if the chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or the sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm (0.2 percent) or greater. Based on test results, soils are not considered corrosive using Caltrans criteria. Note that based on minimum resistivity the soils are considered corrosive to metallic improvements. If improvements that may be susceptible to corrosion are proposed, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed.

Based on laboratory sulfate test results, the near surface soils are designated to a class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. Concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to ACI 318, Table 19.3.2.1 using the “S0” sulfate classification. 2743
Project No. 25040-01 Page 22 April 18, 2025
Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics including sulfate, chloride, pH, minimum resistivity, etc. and provide design level recommendations.

Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action.

4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control
From a geotechnical perspective, positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or to flow freely down a graded slope. Per section 1804.4 of the 2022 CBC, positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 5 percent for earthen surfaces for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the face of wall. If a distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative of a gradient of at least 5 percent to an area drain or swale having a gradient of 2 percent is acceptable. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. Ultimately surface drainage and code compliance are the purview of the project civil engineer.

Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided.

Planters adjacent to a building or structure should be avoided wherever possible or be properly designed (e.g., lined with a membrane), to reduce the penetration of water into the adjacent footing subgrades and thereby reduce moisture related damage to the foundation.

Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades to facilitate drainage.

Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as multiple depressed area drains, are constructed. Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into the planting areas. Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided.

Area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to properly function.

Homeowners should also be made aware that excessive irrigation of neighboring properties can cause seepage and moisture conditions on adjacent lots. Homeowners should be furnished with these recommendations communicating the importance of maintaining positive drainage away from structures, towards streets, when they design their improvements.

The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradients can create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth 2744
Project No. 25040-01 Page 23 April 18, 2025
movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a residential structure and associated improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible.

Subdrains and v-ditches must be properly maintained, and their outlets kept free draining and clear of any potential obstructions. Routine maintenance should be performed, especially prior to and during the rainy season. Failure to properly maintain these elements may result in slope failures, slumps, excessive erosion, localized saturated zones, nuisance type water issues, etc.

Any future trenches excavated on a slope face for utility or irrigation lines and/or for any purpose should be properly backfilled and compacted to the slope face. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical consultant during trench backfill are recommended.

A program for the elimination of burrowing animals in both native and graded slope areas must be established and properly maintained to protect slope stability by reducing the potential for surface water to penetrate into the soil. Continuous erosion control, rodent control, and maintenance are essential to the long-term stability of all slopes.

4.7 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections

The following provisional minimum asphalt concrete (AC) street sections are provided in Table 4 on the following page for Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.5 (or less) and 8.0. These sections are based on an assumed R-value of 40. These recommendations must be confirmed with R-value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final pavement sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the final design Traffic Index. The final Traffic Index is determined by the Civil Engineer or City Engineer. We are not responsible for selecting a design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. The city of Ontario minimum pavement sections have been incorporated into our preliminary recommendations.

TABLE 4
Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section Options
Assumed Traffic Index 5.5 (or less) 8.0
R -Value Subgrade 40 40
AC Thickness 4.0 inches 6.0 inches
Aggregate Base Thickness 6.0 inches 8.0 inches
Due to anticipated heavy construction traffic during installation of utilities and home construction, we recommend that the total thickness (base course and capping course) of AC be placed at essentially the same time. Allowing heavy construction traffic loading on only the base course of the AC will increase the potential for pavement distress. It should be noted that construction traffic such as concrete trucks will likely exceed traffic loading after completion of construction.
2745
Project No. 25040-01 Page 24 April 18, 2025
The pavement section thicknesses provided above are considered minimum thicknesses.

Increasing the thickness of any of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations assume that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur throughout the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement.

Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in Section 4.1 “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report.

4.8 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork
Nonstructural concrete flatwork (such as walkways, private drives, patio slabs, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 5. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.

TABLE 5
Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Guidelines for Very Low Expansion Potential Community
Sidewalks
(≤4 feet wide)
Patios/
Walkways
(adjacent to
homes or flatwork
>4 feet wide)
Private
Vehicular
Driveways
City
Sidewalk
Curb and
Gutters
Minimum
Thickness (in.) 4 (full) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency Standard Presoaking Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior
to placing
Wet down prior
to placing
City/Agency
Standard
Reinforcement 
No. 3 at 36
inches on
centers
No. 3 at 36
inches on
centers
City/Agency
Standard
Thickened
Edge (in.)   8 x 8 City/Agency Standard
Crack Control
Joints
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum
of 1/3 the
concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum
of 1/3 the
concrete
thickness
Saw cut or deep
open tool joint
to a minimum
of 1/3 the
concrete
thickness
City/Agency
Standard
Maximum Joint
Spacing 5 feet 6 feet
10 feet or
quarter cut
whichever is
closer
City/Agency
Standard
2746
Project No. 25040-01 Page 25 April 18, 2025
To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation.

4.9 Geotechnical Plan Review
When available, grading, retaining wall and foundation plans should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional fieldwork may be necessary.

4.10 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).

Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages:
• During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc.); • During retaining wall backfill and compaction;
• During utility trench backfill and compaction;
• After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete;
• Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; • After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placing steel reinforcement and/or concrete; and
• When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report.
2747
Project No. 25040-01 Page 26 April 18, 2025

5.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum the civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification.
2748
4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED

PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PER

PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER

COMPACTED SAND BACKFILL
(EXPANSION INDEX £ 20,
MAXIMUM 35% FINES)

NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED

PER REPORT
MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT

BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF
3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN
MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT

FOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER

WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER
12" MINIMUM
18" MAXIMUM

BACKCUT PER OSHA

EXTENT OF REQUIRED IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM
HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER WALL HEIGHT, H
NOTE:

PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN

AT BASE OF WALL WILL NOT

PREVENT SATURATION OF SOILS

BELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL
FIGURE 2
Retaining Wall
Backfill Detail
DATE April 2025
ENG. / GEOL.

PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME
SCALE

RLD / KTM
Not to Scale
Genstar, Ontario
25040-01
2749
Appendix A
References
2750
Project No. 25040-01 A-1 April 18, 2025

APPENDIX A
References
American Concrete Institute, 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, Third Printing, 2017.
_________, 2018, Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1, effective: December 12, 2018.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D420 – D5876.

California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2022.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, dated May 2021.

California Geological Survey [CGS], 2025, California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, website: CGS Earthquake Zones (ca.gov); retrieved March 27, 2025 LD King Engineers/Surveyors, 2020, As-Built Top Existing Grade of Tract No. 18380, Lot 1 (School Site), Scale 1”=50’, dated December 21, 2020.

LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc., 2014, Updated Methane Site Assessment for the Proposed “Esperanza West” Residential development, Located at the Northeast Corner of Cleveland Avenue and Bellgrave Avenue, APN’s 0218-332-11 and 0218-252-17, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Project No. G10-2353-15, dated August 2, 2014. _________, 2017 Updated Geotechnical Report and Manure Evaluation for Tracts 177931, 177932, 177933, 177935, 18878, and 18380, of the proposed “Esperanza West” and “Esperanza East” Developments, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Project No. G10-2353-10, dated July 26, 2017.
_________, 2018, As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Mass Grading of Tract 18380 (Tentative Tract 17931) within the “Esperanza West” Development, located in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California, Project No. G10-2353-35, dated July 27, 2018. _________, 2020, As-Graded Conditions Reliance Letter, for the Proposed School Site Tract 18380, within the Esperanza Development, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Project No. G10- 2353-35, dated August 27, 2020.

Morton, D.M., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, California, Open File Report 99-172, Version 2.0, 2004.
2751
Project No. 25040-01 A-2 April 18, 2025
Morton et al, 2002, Geologic Map of the Corona South 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside and Orange Counties, California, Version 1.0, Open File Report 02-21, dated 2002 Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), 2012, Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow PostTensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils, PTI DC10.5-12.

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 2025, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved April 16, 2025, from https://seismicmaps.org/.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (v4.2.0), Retrieved April 16, 2025, from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.

Walden & Associates, 2024, Preliminary Grading Plan, Esperanza – PA 11, Ontario, California, Job No. 2175-996-001, dated January 24, 2025
2752
Appendix B
Subsurface Exploration Logs
2753
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/18/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-1 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 708' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 6.5' - Sandy SILT to Silty SAND with some Clayey SAND: gray with some brownish gray to olive gray, generally mottled, moist, medium dense to dense (probes firm throughout), minor detritus in upper 3', some fill lifts are visible, ~6"-8" thick, ~6" topsoil & vegetation Qal B Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/18/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 6.5' to 8' - SAND: off white, slightly moist, medium dense, iron oxides stains -----Gradational contact ----- @ 8' to 10' Sandy SILT to SILT: light gray with orange mottling, slightly moist, dense (probed firm), minor porosity (pinhole) some caliche B-1 @0'-10' afo SM G-1 @0'-1' G-2 @1'-3' G-3 @3'-5' 9.8 7.5 7.6 2.3 2.0 1.6 2754
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/18/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-2 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 707' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 6.5' - Silty SAND with trace Clay: light gray to brownish gray, moist, slightly moist and some dry areas; dense, probes <1" (firm and unyielding), misc gravel <34", minor detritus, few granitic cobbles Qal B Total Depth: 8' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/18/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 6.5' to 8' - Sandy SILT: gray and orange mottled, slightly moist, dense, probes firm, minor pinhole porosity, some subrounded gravel afo SM 6.9 G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' G-3 @4'-6' G-4 @6'-6.5 6.4 3.7 7.5 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 2755
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/18/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-3 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 704' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: W-E A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5.25' - Silty Clayey SAND: Gray to grayish brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense in upper 2' then dense below, probes firm, minor detritus, scattered gravel (34" to 2") Qal B Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/18/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5.25' to 7' - Poorly Graded SAND to Sandy SILT: gray, slightly moist, dense, probes firm, some iron oxide afo SM 8.3 SM B-1 @0'-7' G-1 @0'-1' G-2 @1'-2' G-3 @2'-3' 9.7 9.0 7.3 G-4 @3'-5.25' fine sand layer 1-2" thickSC/SM 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 2756
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/18/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-4 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 706' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 10' - Silty SAND with some Sandy SILT: brownish gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense (can barely probe) misc gravel, minor detritus Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/18/25 A afo SM 7.8 B-1 @0'-10' G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' G-3 @4'-8' 4.9 7.2 6.2 G-4 @8'-10' 1.5 1.6 2.3 1.7 2757
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/18/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-5 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 701' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 3.5' - Silty SAND with Sandy SILT: brownish gray, moist to wet, medium dense (probes 2" to 3") Qal B Total Depth: 8' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/18/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 3.5' to 8' - Silty SAND: gray with orange mottled, slightly moist, medium dense (probes 2" to 3") afo SM 8.5 G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-3.5' 15.7 2.1 2.2 2758
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-6 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 705' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: W-E A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 9' - Silty SAND with some Clayey SAND: brownish gray, slightly moist, dense, probes firm & unyielding, scattered gravel, minor detritus Total Depth: 9' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 A afo SM 6.0 G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' G-3 @4'-6' 4.4 6.7 6.7 G-4 @6'-9' SC 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.5 2759
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-7 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 701' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: W-E A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5.5' - Silty to Clayey SAND: brownish gray, slightly moist, dense probes firm & unyielding, minor detritus, scattered fine gravel Qal B Total Depth: 6.5' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5.5' to 6.5' - Sandy SILT: gray with iron oxide mottled, slightly moist, dense/very dense (probes firm & unyielding), indurated, minor pinhole porosity afo SC 7.9 SC/SM G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' 5.1 G-3 6.0 @4'-5.5' 1.9 1.9 1.4 SM 2760
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-8 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 701' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 3.5' - Silty SAND: brownish gray, slightly moist, dense (probes firm), scattered gravel, upper 6" is topsoil, rootlets & grass vegetation Qal B Total Depth: 5.5' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 3.5' to 5.5' - Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: gray with orange mottled, slightly moist, dense (probes firm) afo SM 6.9 SM/ML G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-3.5' 6.2 1.5 1.4 2761
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-9 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 699' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: E-W A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5.5' - Silty SAND with some Sandy SILT: light brownish gray, slightly moist, dense (probes firm), scattered gravel, minor detritus Qal B Total Depth: 7.5' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5.5' to 7.5' - Gravelly SAND: gray, loose to medium dense (probes ~3" to 6"), rounded to subrounded, friable, fine sand & gravel, up to 3", moderate to poor sorting afo SM 6.8 GM G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' 4.9 G-3 @4'-5.5' 6.3 2.0 2.1 1.9 2762
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-10 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 701' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: W-E A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5.5' - Silty SAND: light brownish gray, slightly moist to wet, dense (probes firm & unyielding), scattered gravel, minor detritus Qal B Total Depth: 7.5' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5.5' to 7.5' - Gravelly SAND: gray, slightly moist, medium dense ,friable, rounded to subrounded, moderate to poor sorting, scattered cobbles up to 4" afo SM 30.3 GM G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' 4.8 G-3 @4'-5.5' 5.8 1.9 1.8 2.5 2763
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-11 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 704' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5.5' - Silty SAND: brownish gray, slightly moist to moist, dense, lenses of gravel & sand (gray) Qal B Total Depth: 7.5' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5.5' to 7.5' - Gravelly SAND: gray, slightly moist, medium dense (friable), moderate to poor sorting afo SM 5.9 GM G-1 @0'-2' G-2 @2'-4' 9.6 G-3 @4'-5.5' 13.2 1.9 4.8* 1.8 *Material to be evaluated during future rough grading 2764
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/19/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-12 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 699' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: W-E A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 4.5' - Silty SAND: light brownish gray, slightly moist to dry, dense (probes firm & unyielding), minor detritus, upper 6" is topsoil & vegetation, rootlets Qal B Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/19/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 4.5' to 6' - Gravelly SAND: gray, slightly moist, medium dense (friable) probes ~5", rounded to subrounded, moderate to poor sorting afo SM 5.1 GM B-1 @0'-6' G-1 @0'-2' 3.8 G-2 @2'-4.5' 1.8 2.2 2765
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/20/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-13 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 706' MSL Surface Slope: 11 deg. Trend: N-S A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5.5' - Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist with wet and dry, loose in upper 3', probes easily, below 3' fill becomes medium dense, mottled brown to dark brown, fill quality is poor, possible mottled organics in sample G-3 Qal B Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/20/25 A B Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5.5' to 6' - Gravelly SAND: gray, slightly moist, medium dense, rounded to subrounded, some coarse sand afo SM 4.4 CL/ML B-1 @0'-5' G-1 @0'-2' G-2 5.9 @2'-4' G-3 @4'-5.5' 17.5 2.2 2.7 8.8* GM *Material to be evaluated during future rough grading 2766
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/20/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-14 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 703' MSL Surface Slope: ~2.5-5 deg. Trend: W-E A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 4.5' - Silty SAND: light gray to light gray brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense to dense (probes firm <2"), minor detritus, some gravel Qal B Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/20/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 4.5' to 7' - Sandy SILT to Silty SAND: gray with orange mottling, slightly moist, dense (probes firm), white mineralization, pinhole porosity afo SM 4.1 ML/SM G-1 @0'-2' 6.4 G-2 @2'-4.5' 2.1 1.5 2767
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/20/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-15 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 699' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 5' - Silty to Clayey SAND: light brownish gray, slightly moist, dense (probes firm), scattered gravel, upper 6" is topsoil, vegetation/rootlets Qal B Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/20/25 AB Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) @ 5' to 6' - Sandy SILT: gray with orange mottled, slightly moist, dense (probes firm), some white mineralization, minor pinhole porosity afo SC/SM 5.3 ML G-1 @0'-2' 10.7 G-2 @2'-4' G-3 @4'-5' 7.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 SM 2768
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) ORGANICS (%) Unit Project Name: Genstar, Ontario Project Number: 25040-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: MJG Date: 3/20/2025 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No.: TP-16 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 702' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: S-N A Artificial Fill By Others (afo) @ 0' to 1' - Silty SAND: reddish brown, slightly moist, roots at surface, (~2" of vegetation) @ 1' to 6' - Silty SAND: light gray, slightly moist, dense (probes firm & unyielding), minor detritus, scattered gravel Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: N/A Backfilled: 3/20/25 A afo SM 6.3 G-1 @0'-2' 5.5 G-2 @2'-4' G-3 @4'-6' 7.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
Appendix C
Field and Laboratory Test Results
2774
Project No. 25040-01 C-1 April 2025

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
Samples collected by PSE that are considered representative of site conditions were generally tested in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures, where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.

Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected representative samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829.

Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
TP-1 (B-1) 4 Very Low
TP-4 (B-1) 5 Very Low
TP-12 (B-1) 2 Very Low
*Per ASTM D 4829
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below.

Sample Location
(Soil Type)
Sample
Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
TP-1 (B-1); “1” Pale Brown Silty Sand 125.5 11.5
TP-4 (B-1); “4” Pale Brown Silty Sand 127.5 9.5
TP-12 (B-1); “12” Pale Brown Silty Sand 129.5 8.5
Organic Content: The organic content of selected samples was determined by standard ASTM D 2974 (Test Methods A & C). Results of organic content testing are presented on Test Pit logs, Appendix B.
2775
APPENDIX C (Cont’d)
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Project No. 25040-01 C-2 April 2025
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422. The results are presented below.

Sample Location Chloride Content
(% by Weight)
TP-1 (B-1) 0.004
TP-4 (B-1) 0.004
TP-12 (B-1) 0.006
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below.

Sample
Location/Number
Sulfate Content
(% by Weight)
TP-1 (B-1) 0.008
TP-4 (B-1) 0.010
TP-12 (B-1) 0.006
2776
Appendix B
Explanation and Summary of Field Density Test Results
Moisture
Test Dry Density Content Relative
Test Test Test Test Test Elev. Soil (pcf) (%) Compaction No. Method Date of Tech Location (feet) Type Field Field (%) Remarks 1 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP1 -2 4 116.8 11.1 91
2 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP2 -4 4 115.0 10.1 903 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP2 -2 1 113.3 10.9 904 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP4 -8 1 113.3 13.4 905 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP3 -1 1 105.9 10.8 84 F6 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP4 -6 1 115.3 13.4 917 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP4 -4 4 115.0 12.1 908 N 3/18/2025 CF CMR TP5 -2 1 108.1 17.9 86 F9 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP6 -5 1 113.0 11.3 90 10 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP6 -3 1 114.4 10.1 9111 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP7 -4 1 114.4 9.8 91 12 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP7 -2 1 114.3 8.1 9113 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP8 -2 1 114.4 11.4 91 14 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP9 -3 1 117.1 8.0 93
15 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP10 -3 1 117.2 11.1 93
16 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP10 -1.5 1 106.0 7.8 84 F
17 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP11 -3 1 113.2 10.3 90
18 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP11 -1 1 114.5 9.2 9119 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP12 -5 1 116.3 7.0 9220 N 3/19/2025 CF CMR TP12 -1 1 113.5 6.3 9021 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP13 -4.5 1 106.5 8.9 84 F 22 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP13 -3.5 1 108.0 9.4 86 F23 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP13 -2 1 106.3 6.8 84 F 24 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP14 -3 1 108.8 2.2 86 F25 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP15 -2 1 113.9 8.6 9026 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP16 -4 1 114.4 11.1 9127 N 3/20/2025 CF CMR TP16 -2 4 119.8 7.4 93 Test Pits
Project No. 25040‐01 B‐1April 2025
2777
Appendix D
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
2778
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

1.0 General

1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moistureconditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 2779
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the
Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.

2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 2780

2.3 Over-excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 2781

3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing
Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 2782

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only.

The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 2783
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
2784
2785
2786
2787

SOUTH VENTURA AVENUE

AMHERST AVENUE

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

CLIFTON AVENUE
LOT 1
TRACT NO. 18380
M.B. 350/64-68
436,507 SQ. FT. - 10.02 AC.

APN: 1073-101-05-0-000

CHATHAM STREET

SHELBURNE STREET

CLIFTON AVENUE

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE AMHERST AVENUE
STREET

AMHERST AVENUE EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

CHATHAM
TP-1
TP-2
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-16
TP-9
TP-10
TP-11
TP-12
TP-13
TP-14
TP-15
1'
1'
1'
1'
1' 1'
1'
1'
2'
2'
2'
2'
3'
1'
4'
6'
B-4
T.D. = 26.5'
B-1
T.D. = 26.5'
B-2
T.D. = 51'
TP-3
LEGEND
Approximate Location of Exploratory Test
Pit by LGC Geotechnical
Approximate Site Limits
Approximate Location of Boring by Others
(LGC Geo-Environmental, 2017)
Approximate Recommended Remedial
Depths, in Feet
TP-16
6'
B-4
T.D. = 26.5'
SHEET
DATE 1 of 1
SCALE

PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NO.

Geotechnical Map ENG. / GEOL.

April 2025
1" = 40'
Genstar, Ontario
25040-01

RLD / KTM
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200
San Clemente, CA 92672
TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142
2788

PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE EUCALYPTUS AND AMHERST

AVENUES PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN 1073-101-05
Prepared for:

Moser Ventures, Inc.
45478 Blackfoot Way
Indian Wells, California 92210
Submitted to:

City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Prepared by:

BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
April 1, 2025
2789
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Paleontological Database Information
Author: Todd A. Wirths, M.S., P.G., Principal Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588
Consulting Firm: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company 14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 679-8218
Report Date: April 1, 2025
Report Title: Paleontological Assessment for Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for: Moser Ventures, Inc.
45478 Blackfoot Way
Indian Wells, California 92210
Submitted to: City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
USGS Quadrangle: Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 7 West of the Corona North (7.5-minute) USGS Quadrangle
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 1073-101-05
Study Area: 10.02 acres
Key Words: Paleontological assessment; Pleistocene alluvial deposits; high paleontological resource sensitivity; full-time monitoring recommended.
2790
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION .......................................................................1 II. REGULATORY SETTING........................................................................................1 State of California.......................................................................................................1 City of Ontario ............................................................................................................5 III. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................6 IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................8 Definition ....................................................................................................................8 Fossil Locality Records Search ..................................................................................8 Project Survey.............................................................................................................9 V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ....................................................................9 Overview .....................................................................................................................9 Professional Standards...............................................................................................9 City of Ontario Assessment of Paleontological Sensitivity.......................................10 VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................10 Paleontological Monitoring Plan .............................................................................11 VII. CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................13 VIII. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................13 Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 General Location Map .................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Location Map...................................................................................3 Figure 3 Project Development Map ...........................................................................4 Figure 4 Geologic Map...............................................................................................7 2791
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION
A paleontological resource assessment has been completed for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project, located within the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project, bounded by Chatham Street, Clifton Avenue, South Amherst Avenue, and East Eucalyptus Avenue, consists of one 10.02-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 1073-101-05) and is located within Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, as shown on the United States Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale (7.5-minute) Corona North topographic quadrangle maps (see Figure 2). As designed, the applicant proposes to clear the property for the construction of a multi-family residential development with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure (Figure 3). The parcel is currently vacant and was previously graded.

As the lead agency, the City of Ontario has required the preparation of a paleontological assessment to evaluate the project’s potential to yield paleontological resources. The paleontological assessment of the project included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records for a previous project in the area, a review of the underlying geology, and recommendations to mitigate impacts to potential paleontological resources.

II. REGULATORY SETTING
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act, is the overriding environmental regulation that sets the requirement for protecting California’s paleontological resources. CEQA mandates that governing permitting agencies (lead agencies) set their own guidelines for the protection of nonrenewable paleontological resources under their jurisdiction.

State of California
Under “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,” as amended in December 2018 (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.), procedures define the types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15063 of the CCR provides a process by which a lead agency may review a project’s potential impact to the environment, determine whether the impacts are significant, and, if necessary, provide recommendations. 2792
2793
2794
2795
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 In CEQA’s Environmental Checklist Form, a question to respond to is, “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (Appendix G, Section VII, Part f). This is to ensure compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, the law that protects nonrenewable resources, including fossils, which is paraphrased below:
a) A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.
b) As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
c) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

City of Ontario
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) sets forth goals and policies for the City to manage future growth and land uses. According to Impact 5.7-6 of the FSEIR:

Ontario is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and upper-Pleistocene sediments deposited during Pliocene and early Pleistocene time. Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are therefore considered to have high sensitivity. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments can yield fossil remains, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below existing ground surface. As previously discussed, for the Approved TOP, the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, conducted the paleontological records search and found one previously known paleontological resource locality recorded by the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, a computer database with positional and contextual data for more than 3,000 fossil localities throughout California and the southwestern United States. This review found one paleontological locality for the City area (SBCM 5.1.8). This locality yielded the remains of a mammoth from approximately 20 feet below the ground surface. As a result, the possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface. (PlaceWorks 2022a)
2796
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 To mitigate the potential impacts identified in Impact 5.7-6, the FSEIR proposes the following mitigation measures. These measures are also stated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of TOP 2050 (PlaceWorks 2022b):

Mitigation Measure MM 5-2: In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities. b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional
Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers. (PlaceWorks 2022a, 2022b)
III. GEOLOGY
Surficial sediments below the project are mapped by Morton and Miller (2006) as Holocene and late Pleistocene eolian (wind-blown) deposits, with nearby sandy alluvial sediments of similar age (Figure 4). These surficial units overlie the ancestral Santa Ana River flood plain deposits mapped as lower to middle Pleistocene very old sandy alluvial channel deposits that are exposed on the surface to the south of the project and closer to the present course of the Santa Ana River.
2797
2798
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Definition
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts, and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are considered older than 5,000 years of age (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010) but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed in the context of local extinction of the organism or habitat, for example. Fossils are considered a nonrenewable resource under state and local guidelines (see Section II).

Fossil Locality Records Search
A paleontological literature review and collections and locality records search was conducted for the project using records obtained for prior projects from the Division of Geological Sciences at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), and the Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet, and data from published and unpublished paleontological literature. The nearest recorded fossil locality is situated about a mile southwest of the project in Eastvale, consisting of the bones of a Pleistocene snake (LACM locality no. (loc.) 7811). Farther southwest, between one and two miles, Pleistocene vertebrate fossils were discovered during trenching activities along the nearby County Line Channel Project by BFSA paleontological monitors (Kennedy et al. 2005). Fossils occurred at depths ranging from 11 to 17 feet deep, and consisted of fragmentary bones from a camel, Camelops sp. cf. C. hesternus, a fragmentary jaw of a bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis, and several unidentifiable bone fragments of large mammals. These fossils were deposited at the WSC.

More Pleistocene fossils have been recovered from a number of completed and ongoing projects by BFSA, all within two miles of the current project. The Vernola Ranch project to the east in Jurupa Valley and the TTM 20472 and Merril Commerce Center projects to the west have all recently yielded the fossil bones of yet-unidentified large mammals and await curation.

Fossil bones from these projects were variously collected from depths ranging from 2.5 to 25 feet. At the Ontario 432 Project, two miles to the west of the current project, the sacrum from a large artiodactyl (hoofed grazer) and other unidentified mammalian remains were discovered, at depths ranging from five to seven feet. These specimens have been deposited at the WSC (Wirths 2021).

The nearest known fossil localities held by the SBCM are situated between two and three miles northwest of the project, containing several isolated fossil bones of camels (Camelops sp.) and a mastodon (Mammut pacificus) rib fragment (SBCM localities 5.1.23 – 5.1.27; Kottkamp 2022). Kottkamp (2022) indicates that the deposits mapped at the surface of this area are unlikely to yield fossils, but the underlying, older deposits “have been found to be highly 2799
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 fossiliferous in the local area.” It should be noted that all of these discoveries post-date the research materials used for paleontological resources in the FSEIR (PlaceWorks 2022a) and, therefore, the document can be construed as out-of-date in that regard.

Project Survey
On February 27, 2025, BFSA staff, under the supervision of Principal Investigator Todd A. Wirths, conducted an intuitive review of the property to determine if any paleontological resources were visible. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 15 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, when possible. All potentially sensitive areas where paleontological resources might be located were closely inspected. Visibility of the natural ground surface was characterized as moderate to good. The vegetation within the property is dominated by non-native grasses and weeds. The survey confirmed that the entire property has been previously graded. Grading resulted in the development of a water catchment basin within the northwest portion of the property and a pad at the property’s south half. No bedrock outcrops were exposed that might indicate the presence of fossils. No paleontological resources, or evidence of paleontological resources, were observed during the survey.

V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Overview
The degree of paleontological sensitivity of any particular area is based upon a number of factors, including the documented presence of fossiliferous resources on a site or in nearby areas, the presence of documented fossils within a particular geologic formation or lithostratigraphic unit, and whether or not the original depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have been conducive to the accumulation of organic remains that may have become fossilized over time. Holocene alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) and thus is typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. Pleistocene (over 11,700 years old) alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in the Inland Empire, however, often yield important terrestrial vertebrate fossils such as extinct mammoths, mastodons, and giant ground sloths, as well as extinct species of horse, bison, camel, saber-toothed cats, and others (Jefferson 1991). These Pleistocene sediments are thus accorded a high paleontological resource sensitivity.

Professional Standards
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) has drafted guidelines that include four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units (formations) that might be impacted by a proposed project, and are summarized below:
2800
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 • High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered.
• Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment, and further study is needed to determine the potential of the rock unit. • Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections or, based on a general scientific consensus, that only preserve fossils in rare circumstances.
• No Potential: Rock units that have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks and plutonic igneous rocks.

Using these criteria, based upon nearby fossil localities in southern and eastern Ontario and western Jurupa Valley, and the mapped geology, the Holocene eolian deposits at the surface of the project may be considered to have a low potential for paleontological resources. However, with increasing depth and age, this potential increases to a high potential for yielding significant paleontological resources.

City of Ontario Assessment of Paleontological Sensitivity The City of Ontario considers strata at depths of 10 feet or greater as having a moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. As such, the potential to uncover undiscovered paleontological resources is considered high (PlaceWorks 2022a: 5.7-17).

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Potentially fossiliferous late Pleistocene alluvial wash or fan deposits likely occur at a depth below the project. These deposits underlie the Holocene eolian deposits mapped at the surface (“Qye” on Figure 4). The occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments across the Inland Empire is well documented. The high paleontological sensitivity rating typically assigned to Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments for yielding paleontological resources supports the recommendation that paleontological monitoring be implemented during mass grading and excavation activities in undisturbed Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources.

On the basis of these statements, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) is recommended, in accordance with Mitigation Measure (MM) 5-2 of the City of Ontario (PlaceWorks 2022a, 2022b). The PRIMP shall be approved by the Planning Department of the City of Ontario prior to the issuance of the project’s grading permit. Based upon these findings, full-time monitoring starting at a depth of four feet below the surface during earth disturbance activities is strongly recommended. A proposed paleontological monitoring plan is 2801
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 detailed below. When implemented with the provisions of CEQA, the City of Ontario (PlaceWorks 2022a, 2022b), and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), this paleontological monitoring plan would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present, to a level below significant.

Paleontological Monitoring Plan

1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional (project) paleontologist, defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who has proven experience and who is knowledgeable in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.

2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Starting at a depth of four feet, monitoring will be conducted full-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed sediments. Monitoring of artificial fill is not recommended.

3. If a fossil(s) is found at a shallower depth, earth disturbance activities should be halted within a radius of 50 feet from the location of the fossil, and a project-level paleontologist shall be consulted to determine the significance of the fossilized remains. If the fossil is deemed significant by the project-level paleontologist, fulltime monitoring should be initiated at the project.

4. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery.

5. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites will be protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with 2802
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12 notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. The precise location of the site is determined with the use of electronic handheld devices. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.

6. Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in protective materials, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are moved to a safe place.

7. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material.

8. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the SVP guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth. If indicators of potential microvertebrate fossils are found, screening of a test sample (approximately 600 pounds) is recommended, according to the SVP guidelines. If feasible, wet screening shall be conducted on the project site. If screening yields significant fossils, then removing and processing a “standard sample” of 6,000 pounds shall be performed.

9. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).

10. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

11. Recovered specimens will be identified and curated into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the San Bernardino County Museum). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Ontario) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material. 2803
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 13 12. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the appropriate lead agency, will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.

VII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this paleontological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and have been compiled in accordance with CEQA criteria.

April 1, 2025
Todd A. Wirths, M.S., P.G. Date
Principal Paleontologist
California Professional Geologist No. 7588
VIII. REFERENCES
Jefferson, G.T. 1991. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California: Part two, mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Reports, no. 7: iv + 1-129.

Kennedy, G.L., Shiller, G.I., and Stewart, J.D. 2005. Paleontological monitoring report, County Line Channel, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Project No. 2-0-0300, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. Unpublished letter report dated May 16, 2005, to Riverside Construction Company, Riverside, California, by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.

Kottkamp, S. 2022. Paleontology records review for proposed site of 1600 East Francis Street project, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished letter for Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California, by the San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.

Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 2804
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 1:100,000.

PlaceWorks. 2022a. Chapter 5. Environmental Analysis. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2021070364. Prepared for the City of Ontario by PlaceWorks, Santa Ana, California.
https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.

PlaceWorks. 2022b. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Ontario Plan 2050 for City of Ontario, SCH No. 2021070364. Prepared for the City of Ontario by PlaceWorks, Santa Ana, California. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 12/MMRP_TOP2050SEIR.pdf.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources; by the SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Electronic document, https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.

Wirths, T.A. 2021. Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Ontario 432 Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (TR 18929 and 18930). Unpublished consulting report for Landsea Homes, Irvine, California, by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2805
Paleontological Assessment for the Eucalyptus and Amherst Avenues Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
2806
Todd A. Wirths, MS, PG No. 7588
Principal Paleontologist
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road  Suite A 
Phone: (858) 679-8218  Fax: (858) 679-9896  Email: [email protected] Education
Master of Science, Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, California 1995 Bachelor of Arts, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 1992 Professional Certifications
California Professional Geologist #7588, 2003
Riverside County Approved Paleontologist
San Diego County Qualified Paleontologist
Orange County Certified Paleontologist
OSHA HAZWOPER 40-hour trained; current 8-hour annual refresher Professional Memberships
Board member, San Diego Geological Society
San Diego Association of Geologists; past President (2012) and Vice President (2011) South Coast Geological Society
Southern California Paleontological Society
Experience
Mr. Wirths has more than a dozen years of professional experience as a senior-level paleontologist throughout southern California. He is also a certified California Professional Geologist. At BFSA, Mr.

Wirths conducts on-site paleontological monitoring, trains and supervises junior staff, and performs all research and reporting duties for locations throughout Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Mr. Wirths was formerly a senior project manager conducting environmental investigations and remediation projects for petroleum hydrocarbonimpacted sites across southern California.

Selected Recent Reports
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2019 Paleontological Assessment for the MorningStar Marguerite Project, Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2807
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, 2
2019 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Nimitz Crossing Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Voltaire 24, LP. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2019 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Prepared for JRT BP 1, LLC.

Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Oceanside Beachfront Resort Project, Oceanside, San California. Prepared for S.D. Malkin Properties. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Nakase Project, Lake Forest, Orange County, San California. Prepared for Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Report on file at Brian F.

Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning, Riverside County. Prepared for NP Banning Industrial, LLC. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Ortega Plaza Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County.

Prepared for Empire Design Group. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Resource Record Search Update for the Green River Ranch III Project, Green River Ranch Specific Plan SP00-001, City of Corona, California. Prepared for Western Realco. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2020 Paleontological Assessment for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2020 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Imperial Landfill Expansion Project (Phase VI, Segment C-2), Imperial County, California. Prepared for Republic Services, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Manitou Court Logistics Center Project, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Link Industrial. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program for the Del Oro (Tract 36852) Project, Menifee, Riverside County. Prepared for D.R. Horton. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2021 Paleontological Assessment for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project (Planning Case PR-2020- 000519), City of Riverside, Riverside County, California. Prepared for OZI Alessandro, LLC.

Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. 2021 Paleontological Monitoring Report for the Boardwalk Project, La Jolla, City of San Diego.

Prepared for Project Management Advisors, Inc. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California.
2808
DATE: March 28, 2025
TO: Dave Waters, Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Shannon Wong
JOB NO: 15662-05 GHG Assessment

ESPERANZA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT GREENHOUSE GAS

ASSESSMENT
Dave Waters,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Esperanza Specific Plan Amendment development (referred to as Project) to support the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), which is located on the northeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Amherst Avenue in the City of Ontario. The purpose of this work effort is to determine if the Project would result in new or substantially different Greenhouse Gas Impacts than those considered and addressed in the Esperanza Specific Plan (Approved Specific Plan) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR (SEIR).

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the proposed Project is to consist of 161 multifamily residential dwelling units (with a density of approximately 16.1 dwelling units per net acre). The Project is located within the Esperanza Specific Plan. The original Specific Plan that was approved contemplated a 736-student elementary school within Planning Area 11. The land use will be updated from “School” to “MDR Medium Density Residential” consistent with the adjacent land use to the northeast. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in a single phase by the year 2029.

Exhibit 1 shows the preliminary site plan. For comparison purposes, Exhibit 2 shows the currently approved land use plan identifying Planning Area 11 with a school. 2809
Dave Waters Genstar Development Company/GDCI-13
March 28, 2025