San Dimas City Council
October 28, 2025

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 42
a. Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency: The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The Project site has a City of San Dimas General Plan land use designation of SF-Low which allows a density of 3.1 to 6 du/acre, and is zoned as SF-8000, which is intended to provide for the development of singlefamily residential homes at urban standards, with not more than one dwelling unit permitted on any lot or parcel.

As previously described, portions of the detached residential dwelling units would be designated for lowincome housing in exchange for the approval of a density bonus and several development incentives and waivers as allowed under Section 18.22.040 of the City of San Dimas Municipal Code. Table 4-1 shows the proposed Project’s consistency with the SF-8000 development standards, as well as applicable waivers. As shown, the Project would meet all the requisite development standards, including lot size, height, setback, and parking requirements with applicable waivers. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable development standards.

Table 4-1: SF-8000 Development Standards
Development Feature SF-8000 Zoning
Requirement
Incentive or
Waiver Proposed Project Consistency
Minimum Lot Area 8,000 SF Waiver Consistent. The Project is proposing lot sizes ranging from 2,060 SF to 5,405 SF.

Compliance with lot area standards would
preclude the development of the
Applicant’s project. Waiver of these
standards is requested to achieve the unit
yield and maintain the overall project
concept as submitted by Applicant.

Minimum Lot Dimension Width: 70 ft
Depth: None
Waiver Consistent. The Project proposes minimum
lot widths of approximately 35 feet.

Compliance with lot width standards would
preclude the development of the
Applicant’s project. Waiver of these
standards is requested to achieve the unit
yield and maintain the overall project
concept as submitted by Applicant.

Maximum Coverage 35% of lot area Waiver Consistent. The Project would result in an overall average building coverage of
35% of the lot area and a maximum lot
coverage of 65% of any single residential
lot area. Compliance with coverage
standards would preclude the
development of the Applicant’s project.

Waiver of these standards is requested to
achieve the unit yield and maintain the
overall project concept as submitted by
Applicant.

Building Height 35 feet or 2 stories N/A Consistent. The proposed Project would result in a maximum building height of 2
stories, as allowed (per San Dimas
Municipal Code Section 18.24.040).

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 43
Development Feature SF-8000 Zoning
Requirement
Incentive or
Waiver Proposed Project Consistency
Front yard setback 20 ft minimum Waiver Consistent. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the Project satisfies affordability
requirements and these standards would
physically preclude construction of the
Project as designed.

Waiver of these standards is requested to
achieve necessary flexibility in site
planning to preserve the necessary unit
yield and maintain the overall project
concept as submitted by Applicant.

The proposed standard with Justified
Waiver are as follows:
• Front Setback: Reduced from 20 ft to
2 ft minimum at cluster motor courts;
and 18 ft at driveways
• Side Yard Setback: Reduced from 12
ft and 5 ft to 2 ft minimum at motor
court driveways; 4 ft at full length
driveways; and 4 ft minimum at
interior side
• Street Setback: Reduced from 10 ft
and 5 ft to 2 ft minimum at motor court
driveways; 4 ft at full length
driveways; and 4 ft minimum at
interior side.

Street side setback 10 ft minimum
5 ft minimum (internal
side)
Waiver
Side yard setback 12 ft (driveway side)
5 ft (other side)
Waiver
Parking Requirement Single Family:
2 car garage spaces
Condominiums, townhomes
and other similar
complexes:
2 garage spaces/unit,
plus one noncovered
space for each additional
bedroom beyond two
bedrooms per unit, plus
one guest space for each
three units.

Waiver Consistent. The proposed Project would
provide 137 total parking spaces, which
would exceed the parking requirement.

Recreational RV Storage Permanent access and
storage space shall be
provided on all lots or
parcels created after
June 13, 1973 for
recreational vehicles,
trailers, boats, or camper
shells. Such storage space
shall be located behind
the main building line,
within the interior side
yard, or in the rear yard.

Waiver Consistent. The proposed Project would
not be required to provide Recreational
Vehicle parking. Waiver of these
standards is required to achieve necessary
flexibility in site planning to preserve the
necessary unit yield and maintain the
overall project concept as submitted by
Applicant.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 44
Development Feature SF-8000 Zoning
Requirement
Incentive or
Waiver Proposed Project Consistency
Further, such space shall
be not less than ten feet
wide by twenty-five feet
long
Property Development
Standards Involving Side
Yard Easements
The Code requires certain
property development
standards shall apply to
single-family
developments utilizing
side yard easements
Waiver Consistent. The proposed Project would
not be required to provide side yard
easements. Waiver of these standards is
required to achieve necessary flexibility in
site planning to preserve the necessary unit
yield and maintain the overall project
concept as submitted by Applicant.

Right of Way WidthsRoadway Widths
For loop, cul-de-sac, or
local streets serving more
than twenty-four lots, onefamily or two-family use,
fifty-four feet in width
with a paved area of a
width specified upon
approval of the tentative
map
Incentive Compliance with Section 17.40.160.C
roadway width standards increases
economic cost of the project for the
Applicant and is not required to support
the public health or safety. Provision of a
concession or incentive is requested to
achieve the project concept as submitted
by Applicant.

Tree Mitigation An approval to remove or
relocate mature
significant trees by the
director of development
services or the
development plan review
board are subject to
conditions of approval as
deemed necessary to
implement the provisions
of this chapter including,
but not limited to: A. Tree
relocation and/or two for
one replacement with
minimum fifteen-gallon
box tree(s), or other
replacement of equivalent
value and size, within the
subject property
Incentive Compliance with Section 18.162.060
beyond the standard mitigation levels
stated in the Code (i.e., two for one
replacement with 15-gallon trees)
increases economic cost of the project for
the Applicant and is not required to
support public health or safety. Provision of
a concession or incentive will result in
identifiable and actual cost savings, and is
requested to achieve the project concept as
submitted by Applicant.

Allow Issuance of
Demolition and Building
Permits Prior to Final
Map Recordation
City policy requires
Project applicants to
complete recordation of a
Final Map prior to
building permit issuance.

Incentive Compliance with existing City policy
increases development schedule durations
and increases project carrying costs
thereby increasing the economic cost of the
project for the Applicant. The timing is not
required under State or federal law, nor is
it intended to support public health or
safety. Provision of a concession or
incentive is requested to achieve the
project concept as submitted by Applicant.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 45
b. Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context: The proposed development occurs within City limits on a Project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The proposed Project is within the city limits of the City of San Dimas, on a 3.27-acre site, north of West Covina Boulevard. As shown on Figure 2-3, the site is surrounded by a railroad to the north, mobile home residences to the east, a church and office to the west, and West Covina Boulevard followed by San Dimas High School the south. As the Project site is less than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses, it meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b). c. Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species: The Project site was determined to have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The 3.27-acre Project site contains multiple ornamental trees throughout the site. Biological resources on the Project site were evaluated by the General Biological Assessment (GBA) prepared for the Project site, included as Appendix C to analyze potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special‐status species and associated habitat (Appendix C). A records search of the Project site and surrounding area was conducted to identify sensitive species with the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Lists, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant lists to obtain species information for the Project area. According to the records search, a total of 46 sensitive species of plants and 64 sensitive species of animals have the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Of the 46 sensitive plant species, a total of 17 plant species are listed as State and/or federally Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. Additionally, of the 64 sensitive species of animals identified, 19 are listed as State and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species.

The GBA included a field survey conducted on January 22, 2025. The GBA describes the Project site conditions as developed with two single family residences, a barn, and a garage building on the northern portion of the site. Further, the southern portion of the site was covered in gravel and had remnants of nursery structures, however majority of plants observed on site are ornamental trees and weeds.

The field survey did not identify any of the listed plant or sensitive wildlife species or suitable habitat for the listed species present on the Project site.

As mentioned previously, the Project site contains ornamental shrubs and trees onsite, thus the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 18.162, Tree Preservation, which regulates the removal of mature significant trees. As such, an Arborist Report (included as Appendix A) was prepared for the Project to document the species, health, and condition of the existing trees onsite. The Arborist Report surveyed 143 trees onsite and found that all trees were in average or below average condition. Further, 40 of the 143 trees surveyed onsite were determined to meet the criteria for City protected trees pursuant to the City’s ordinance (Appendix A). As such, the Project would be required to obtain a tree removal permit from the City’s Development Plan Review Board, before removing or relocating any significant trees(s) from the Project site.

In addition, as a standard condition of approval, the Applicant is required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15 to ensure impacts to nesting birds and raptors, which may use vegetation on or near the Project site for nesting, during construction would not occur. To ensure compliance with the MBTA, a preconstruction clearance survey will be required for nesting birds be completed no more than 3 days prior to ground disturbance if removal of trees is scheduled during the nesting bird season.

For the reasons described above, the proposed Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species and meets the criteria contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c).

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 46
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
Tree Ordinance
Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 18.162, Tree Preservation, a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the City of San Dimas Development Plan Review Board, before removing or relocating any significant trees(s) from the Project site.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. If removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat are scheduled within the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a preconstruction clearance survey will be required for nesting birds be completed no more than 3 days prior to ground disturbance, as a condition of approval. This will ensure that no nesting birds adjacent to the construction area will be disturbed during construction. If nesting birds are found, an avoidance buffer no less than 300 feet shall be implemented around the nest until all young have fledged and the nest is confirmed by a qualified biologist to be no longer active. d. Criterion Section 15332(d): Significant Effects: Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

TRAFFIC
The Project proposes the construction of 37 detached residential dwelling units on the Project site. The Project trip generation was prepared using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).

As shown in Table 4-2, the operation of the proposed Project would generate 349 daily trips including 26 trips during the AM peak hour and 35 trips during the PM peak hour as calculated using trip rates from the ITE.

Table 4-2: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single Family Detached Housing1 DU 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Project Trip Generation
Dwelling Units 37 DU 349 7 19 26 22 13 35
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 210 SingleFamily Detached Housing.

Source: VMT Screening (Appendix H)
The City of San Dimas CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Section of the TIA Guidelines provides vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening thresholds to identify projects that would be considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT and therefore could be screened out for further analysis. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact of the project would be considered less than significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening

2. Low VMT Generating Area Screening

3. Project Land Use Screening

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 47
A VMT Screening Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project (included as Appendix H) to determine the applicability of each of the Screening Criteria, further described below.

Screening Criteria 1 – Transit Priority Area Screening: The City of San Dimas utilizes the SGVCOG tool to determine whether the Project is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA). As shown in Appendix H, SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report, the Project is not located in a Transit Priority Area. Therefore, the Project would not qualify for Screening Criteria 1.

Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Generating Area Screening: The City of San Dimas utilizes the SGVCOG tool to determine whether the Project is located in a Low VMT area. A low VMT area is defined as being 15 percent below the Citywide average. Since the project type is residential, Home-based VMT per capita is used to evaluate whether the Project is in a low VMT area. The Citywide average for Home-based VMT per capita is 21.55. Based on the City’s guidelines, the threshold is 15 percent below the Citywide average, therefore the threshold is 18.31 Home-based VMT per capita. The Project is located within TAZ 22409100.

Based on the SGVCOG tool, the Project is located in a low VMT area, as the Project site has a Home-based VMT per capita of 16.6, which is below the City’s threshold of 18.31. Therefore, the Project meets Screening Criteria 2.

Screening Criteria 3 – Project Land Use Screening: According to the City’s Guidelines, projects which propose local serving retail (retail projects less than 50,000 SF) or other local serving uses would have a less than significant impact on VMT. The types of projects considered local serving include K-12 schools, day care centers, local parks, student housing projects and community institutions such as libraries, fire stations, etc. In addition, projects which would generate fewer than 110 average daily vehicle trips would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT. As shown in Table 4-2, the Project generates 349 daily trips, which is more than 110 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project would not qualify for Screening Criteria 3.

The proposed Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic as it would meet Screening Criteria 2; therefore, the proposed Project meets the traffic related criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).

NOISE
Noise Terminology
Various noise descriptors are utilized in this noise analysis, and are summarized as follows:
• dB: Decibel, the standard unit of measurement for sound pressure level. • dBA: A-weighted decibel, an overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
• Ldn: Also termed the “day-night” average noise level (DNL), Ldn is a measure of the average of Aweighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, accounting for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises.
• Leq: The equivalent sound level, which is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically 1-hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level.
• Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Lmin: The instantaneous minimum noise level experienced during a given period of time. • CNEL: The Community Noise Equivalent Level, which, similar to the Ldn, is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day that is obtained after an addition of 5 dBA to measured noise levels between

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 48
the hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after an addition of 10 dBA to noise levels between the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. • Ambient Noise: The “ambient noise level” is the background noise level associated with a given environment at a specified time and is usually a composite of sound from many sources from many directions.

Noise Regulations
Noise Element of the General Plan
Objective 1.1 Future projects within the City will reflect a consciousness on the part of the City regarding the reduction of unnecessary noise near noise-sensitive areas such as parks, hospitals, libraries and convalescent homes, etc.

Policy 1.1.2 Consideration should be given to buffering noise-sensitive areas from noise-generating land uses.

Policy 1.1.4 Close attention should be paid to the noise evaluation in environmental impact statements.

Objective 2.1 The City will consider planning guidelines which include noise control for the exterior living space of all new residential developments within noise impact areas.

Policy 2.1.2 The City will consider planning guidelines which include noise control for the interior living space of all new residential developments within noise impact areas.

Policy 2.1.3 The City will require that the State noise insulation standards for exterior-to-interior noise control be applied to all new single family and multi family structures.

Policy 2.1.6 The City will review noise characteristics of applicants requesting conditional use permits, variance, zone change and other discretionary actions.

Municipal Code
Municipal Code Section 8.36.030, Fixed and Mobile Noise Sources. Section 8.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code states that unless a permit has been granted by the development plan review board, it is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, any single or combination fixed source or mobile source type of equipment or machinery, that individually or collectively constitute an identifiable noise source in such a manner as to cause the sound level at any point on the property line of any property to exceed the noise level limits set forth in Section 8.36.040 of this chapter, however, that if all provisions of Section

8.36.110 are complied with, this section shall not apply to construction equipment used in connection with construction operations.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.040, Noise Level Limit. The allowable noise level or sound level referred to in Section 8.36.030 shall be the higher of the following:
a. Actual measured ambient level; or
b. That noise level limit as determined from the following table:

Table 4-3: City of San Dimas Noise Level Limits
Zone Time Sound Level (A-weighted)
Decibels
Residential
Low and Medium Density
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 50
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 45

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 49
Zone Time Sound Level (A-weighted)
Decibels
Night 40
Residential High Density
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 60
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
Night 50
Source: City of San Dimas Municipal Code, Section 8.36.040.

If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level limit applicable to the lower zone shall apply.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.070, Maximum Permissible Residential Sound Levels. Section 8.36.070 of the City’s Municipal Code states the following regarding residential sound levels:
a. The following noise standards for residential dwellings shall apply unless otherwise specifically indicated interior noise levels shall be measured within dwellings with windows in their open position.

Table 4-4: City of San Dimas Noise Level Limits
Location Time Interval Sound Level (A-weighted)
Decibels
Interior Living Areas
Night 35
Day 45
Exterior Living Areas - 65
Source: City of San Dimas Municipal Code, Section 8.36.070. b. No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring dwelling unit to exceed the standards in subsection (a).
c. No person shall construct or cause to be constructed a residential development in an area which has an existing or projected ambient noise level such that the noise levels in subsection (a) of this section will be exceeded without providing mitigation measures adequate to reduce the requisite noise levels to an allowable level. Prior to the issuance of building permits for a project in such an area, a registered engineer shall certify that the construction plans will provide any required noise reduction. In addition, prior to occupancy, a random selection of units shall be tested to provide evidence that the required allowable noise levels were achieved.
d. Exception. An exception may be granted, subject to approval by the city council, for exterior noise levels to exceed sixty-five dBA when there are existing freeway noise walls that were constructed to mitigate exterior noise levels for the affected property, and where no other acceptable means of mitigation are available.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.100, Construction. Section 8.36.100 of the City’s Municipal Code states that (a) it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet there from, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on any building, structure or project, or to operate any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, steam or electric hoist or other construction type equipment or device between the hours of eight p.m. of one day and seven a.m. of the next day, at any time on Sunday, or at any time on any public holiday in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work. "Public holiday," as used in this section, means the day upon which each of the following holidays is recognized and celebrated as a holiday by the employees of the City:

Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve,

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 50
Christmas, New Year's Eve, New Year's, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day or any other holiday recognized as such by the city council. (b) A permit may be issued authorizing the work prohibited by this section whenever it is found that the public interest will be served thereby. An application for such a permit shall be in writing, shall be accompanied by an application fee in the amount of fifty dollars, or as from time to time an amount set by a resolution of the city council, and shall set forth in detail facts showing that the public interests will be served by the issuance of such permit. Such application shall be made to the building and safety division of the department of community development. The building official shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this section and shall have the authority to issue such permits. He shall coordinate the processing of each application fora permit with such departments as he deems will be affected by the issuance of the permit.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.110, Loud or Unusual Noises. Section 8.36.110 of the City’s Municipal Code states that the following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of Section 8.36.080, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive:
a. Vibration. It is unlawful to operate or permit the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way.

A Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E) was prepared to evaluate noise and vibration impacts from the Project and has been incorporated into the discussion below.

Construction
The noise impacts from construction of the proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the equipment noise levels and usage factors listed in Table 4-5 and through use of the RCNM. For each phase of construction, the construction equipment was analyzed based on being placed in the center of the project site, which is based on the analysis methodology detailed in FTA Manual for a General Assessment. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, all equipment was analyzed, instead of just the two loudest pieces of equipment as detailed in the FTA Manual.

Construction Noise
The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction of the proposed Project would occur over a 19-month period. The amount of noise generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. As shown on Table 4-5, construction equipment used for the Project would generate noise up to 84 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source.

Table 4-5: Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction
Equipment1
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560
Lmax at
50 feet2 (dBA,
slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax
at 50 feet
(dBA, slow)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial
Saw 1 20 90 90
Excavators 3 40 85 81

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 51
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction
Equipment1
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560
Lmax at
50 feet2 (dBA,
slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax
at 50 feet
(dBA, slow)
Rubber Tired
Dozers 2 40 85 82
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired
Dozers 3 40 85 82
Crawler Tractors 4 40 84 N/A
Other Equipment
>5 HP 1 50 85 N/A
Grading
Excavators 1 40 85 81
Grader 1 40 85 83
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82
Crawler Tractors 3 40 84 N/A
Building
Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 50 82 81
Backhoes 1 40 80 78
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Welder 1 40 73 74
Paving
Cement and Mortar
Mixers 2 40 85 79
Paver 1 50 85 77
Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77
Rollers 2 20 85 80
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Architectural
Coating Air Compressor
1 40 80 78
Notes: (1) Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. (2) Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

Per Section 8.36.100 of the City’s Municipal Code, noise from construction activities is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, on Sundays and public holidays. The proposed Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations, which would be detailed in the construction permits. Therefore, Project construction would be compliant with the City’s noise related standards and impacts related to standards would be less than significant.

Neither the City’s General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. Thus, the construction noise thresholds from the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 90 dBA during the daytime at the nearby homes and church. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are mobile homes located 125 to the east of the Project site and a church located 210 feet west of the Project site.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 52
Modeling of the construction noise to the location of the existing sensitive receptors is summarized in Table 4-6, which shows that construction noise levels could reach up to 81 dBA Leq during site preparation, which would not exceed the 90 dBA noise threshold. Therefore, noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the construction noise over the 19-month period would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.

Table 4-6: Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors Receiver
Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Threshold
Exceeded
Mobile
Homes to
East
79 81 79 79 77 66 No
Church to
West 74 76 75 75 72 61 No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

Overall, as temporary construction activity would occur in compliance with the City’s regulations and would be less than 81 dBA at existing sensitive receptors, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.

Operation
Operational Noise
The proposed Project would result in the operation of 37 detached residential dwelling units. Potential noise impacts associated with the Project would be from Project-generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways, parking lot activity and air conditioning units. In addition, the proposed development would be adjacent to West Covina Boulevard, which may create exterior and interior noise levels in excess of City standards at the proposed residences.

Vehicular Noise
Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project is a residential Project that would not result in a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.

Neither the General Plan nor the CEQA Guidelines define what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels,” as such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the Federal Transit Administration and the FHWA traffic noise model to identify noise level increases. Table 4-7 lists both Project Only and Cumulative (Combined= Existing + Noise Exposure Increase) thresholds.

According to FTA noise guidelines, the Project cumulative contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dBA, depending on what the existing (ambient) noise levels are in the Project vicinity.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 53
Table 4-7: FTA Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure Existing Noise Exposure
(dBA Leq or Ldn)
Allowable Noise Impact Exposure dBA Leq or Ldn
Project Only Combined Noise Exposure Increase
45 51 52 +7
50 53 55 +5
55 55 58 +3
60 57 62 +2
65 60 66 +1
70 64 71 +1
75 65 75 0
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

As described previously, operation of the proposed Project would generate 349 daily trips including 26 trips during the AM peak hour and 35 trips during the PM peak hour.

Existing Year Conditions
The proposed Project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4-8. As shown, the increase in noise from additional vehicular traffic would not exceed FTA’s traffic noise thresholds, as listed in Table 4-7. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4-8: Existing Year Project Traffic Noise Contributions Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Existing
Existing
Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
Increase
Threshold
Lone Hill Avenue North of West Covina
Boulevard

61.7 61.8 +0.1 +2 dBA
West Covina Boulevard West of Lone Hill Avenue 67.2 67.3 +0.1 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard West of Saints Court 66.3 66.3 +0.0 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard West of Project Driveway 65.6 65.6 +0.0 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard East of Project Driveway 67.1 67.2 +0.1 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard East of Charter Oak
Driveway

67.2 67.2 +0.0 +1 dBA
1 Distance to nearest sensitive receptors does not take into account existing noise barriers.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

Opening Year 2027 Conditions
The proposed Project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the opening year 2027 without Project scenario to the opening year 2027 with Project scenario. As shown in Table 4-9, the proposed Project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase threshold allowed, as listed in Table 4-7. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the opening year 2027 conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 54
Table 4-9: Opening Year 2027 Project Traffic Noise Contributions Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Year
2027
Year
2027
Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
Increase
Threshold
Lone Hill Avenue North of West Covina Boulevard 61.9 61.9 +0.0 +2 dBA West Covina Boulevard West of Lone Hill Avenue 67.4 67.4 +0.0 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard West of Saints Court 66.5 66.5 +0.0 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard West of Project Driveway 65.8 65.8 +0.0 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard East of Project Driveway 67.3 67.3 +0.0 +1 dBA West Covina Boulevard East of Charter Oak Driveway 67.3 67.4 +0.1 +1 dBA 1 Distance to nearest sensitive receptors does not take into account existing noise barriers.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

As shown in Tables 4-8 and 4-9, vehicular trips would result in at most a 0.1 dBA noise level increase during operation, and would not exceed FTA dBA noise level increase thresholds. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to vehicular noise.

Onsite Noise Impacts to Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Stationary Noise
Section 8.36.030 of the Municipal Code limits the noise level from any fixed or mobile source type of equipment to the noise limits in Section 8.36.040 of the Municipal Code. Section 8.36.040 limits low and medium density residential zones to a limit of 50 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., 45 dBA between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 40 dBA at night. The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.36.040 details that the noise standard is the higher of either ambient noise levels or the aforementioned standards. The existing ambient noise levels currently range between 66 and 80 dBA CNEL, which are higher than the City’s standards, however, to provide a conservative analysis, the 40 dBA at night threshold has been utilized.

Table 4-10 shows the calculated noise levels at the adjacent properties from stationary noise.

Table 4-10: Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source
Calculated Noise Levels (dBA Leq) at:

Mobile Homes to East Church to West
Air Conditioner Equipment 39.8 37.3
City of San Dimas Night Noise Standard 40 40
Exceed City Noise Standard? No No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

As shown in Table 4-10, noise from air conditioner units would create a noise level as high as 39.8 dBA at the mobile homes to the east and 37.3 dBA at the church property to the west. However, the operational onsite noise levels would be below the residential night noise standard of 40 dBA and would be well below the measured onsite ambient noise levels that range between 66 and 80 dBA CNEL. Therefore, operation of the Project would not create a substantial increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 55
Aircraft Noise
The nearest airport is Brackett Field Airport that is located 2 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of this airport. Therefore, the proposed residences would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise and impacts would be less than significant.

Ground-borne Vibration
Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off-road equipment. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the mobile homes located as near as five feet east of the project site. The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.36.110 limits the creation of vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary. However, since the City does not have quantified vibration standards applicable to the proposed project, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual which provides guidelines for assessing the potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage and human perception has been utilized.

The Caltrans guidance has found that distinctly perceptible human annoyance occurs at 0.25 inch per second PPV from transient sources.

Table 4-11 provides vibration levels for particular construction activities at a distance of 25 feet.

Table 4-11: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment
Reference PPV/Lv Velocity at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) Lv(VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact) 1.518 (Upper range)

0.644 (typical)
112 (Upper range)
104 (typical)
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.734 (Upper range)

0.170 (typical)
105 (Upper range)
93 (typical)
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 μin/sec.

Notes: in/sec = inch/inches per second; LV = velocity in decibels; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration velocity decibels Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix E).

The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a small bulldozer during demolition and grading activities and from a vibratory roller during paving activities. Due to the small size of the project site a small dozer that includes a D1, D2, or D3 sizes would most likely be used as there is not enough room to operate a large dozer. As shown in Table 4-11, a small bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.003 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet and a vibratory roller would create a vibration level of 0.21 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 56
For the small bulldozer, based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite sensitive receptor (single-family residence as near as 5 feet to the east of the Project site) would be 0.018 inch per second PPV, which would be below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold. For the vibratory roller, based on typical vibration propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite sensitive receptor (85 feet away) would be 0.055 inch per second PPV, which would be below the human annoyance threshold of 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold. Therefore, impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Additionally, since the proposed Project would consist of the development of a residential community, the operation of the Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources other than typical onsite vehicle operations for a residential development. Therefore, impacts related to operation vibration would be less than significant.

Overall, the proposed residential Project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise or vibration; therefore, the proposed Project meets the noise related criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).

AIR QUALITY
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD and SCAG use land use designations contained in General Plan documents to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development-related sources.

As described in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, for purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed project would have a development density and vehicle trip generation that is substantially greater than what was anticipated in the General Plan, then the proposed project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a project’s density is consistent with the General Plan, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD considers projects consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Single Family Low Residential. As such, the limited level of growth associated with the proposed Project would not exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP.

Also, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds. As described in the analysis below, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating.

The quantity of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. In addition, the proposed Project would generate a need for construction worker vehicle trips to and from the Project site during the estimated 19 months of construction.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling emissions such as fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 57
include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.

In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 that governs the VOC content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents, would be required. As described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis and as shown in Table 4-12, the CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds (Appendix B). Therefore, construction activities would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4-12: Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2026
Demolition 2.3 21.2 20.2 <0.1 1.5 0.9
Site Prep 4.1 36.4 34.4 0.1 7.8 4.5
Grading 2.2 19.5 20.2 <0.1 3.6 2.0
Building Construction 1.2 10.9 15.0 <0.1 0.6 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.1 36.4 34.4 0.1 7.8 4.5
2027
Building Construction 1.2 10.4 14.9 <0.1 0.6 0.4
Paving 1.0 7.5 11.5 <0.1 0.6 0.3
Architectural Coating 32.3 1.1 1.6 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 32.3 10.4 14.9 <0.1 0.6 0.4
Maximum Daily
Emission 2025-2026 32.3 36.4 34.4 0.1 7.8 4.5
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).

Operational Emissions
Development and operation of the 37 detached residential dwelling units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with mobile sources (emissions from vehicle trips) and area (natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products).

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table 4-13. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and would be less than significant.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 58
Table 4-13: Regional Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.1 0.9 9.7 <0.1 2.4 0.6
Area 2.3 <0.1 2.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project
Operational Emissions 3.4 1.3 12.0 <0.1 2.4 0.6
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).

Localized Emissions
The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. The impacts were analyzed pursuant to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. According to the LST Methodology, offsite mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs. SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The Project site is located in SRA 10, Pomona/Walnut Valley.

Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. The nearest LST sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing residences to the east and west, and San Dimas High School south of the Project site; therefore, the 25-meter LST threshold was used to evaluate the proposed Project. I Construction LST
The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily and were used to evaluate LSTs. As shown in Table 4-14, the maximum daily construction emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST thresholds and would therefore have a less than significant localized construction air quality impact.

Table 4-14: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2026
Demolition 20.7 19.0 1.2 0.8
Site Prep 36.3 33.1 7.5 4.4

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 59
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading 19.1 19.1 3.3 1.9
Building Construction 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.3 33.1 7.5 4.4
2027
Building Construction 10.2 14.0 0.4 0.3
Paving 7.5 10.4 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 1.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 10.2 14.0 0.4 0.3
Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 36.3 33.1 7.5 4.4
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds1 192.5 1,225.5 9.0 5.5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
1Significance thresholds obtained by interpolating values for 2 acres and 5 acres.

Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).

Operational LST
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to project-related stationary mobile sources.

Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational LSTs. The Project proposes residential uses, which do not typically involve vehicles idling or queueing for long periods.

Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, impacts related to operational LSTs would be less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAQMD has proposed interim numeric GHG significance thresholds that are based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from development, which is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year (Appendix B). SCAQMD’s approach is widely used by cities in the South Coast Air Basin, including the City of San Dimas. As such, the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is utilized herein to determine if GHG emissions from this Project would be significant. CalEEMod v. 2022.1.1 was used to calculate Project-generated emissions (Appendix B).

During construction, temporary sources of GHG emissions include construction equipment and workers’ commutes to and from the site. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. As shown on Table 4-15, the proposed Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 20 MTCO2e per year from construction emissions amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.

Table 4-15: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2026 279
2027 320
Total Emissions 599
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 20
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 60
During operations, the proposed residences would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips; water, natural gas, and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. Table 4-16 shows the operational GHG emissions that would result from operation of the 37 detached residential dwelling units. The large majority of GHG emissions generated from the residences would be from vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4-16, Project operations would generate a maximum of approximately 531 MTCO2e per year. Summing the construction and operational emissions, the proposed Project would result in total GHG emissions of approximately 551 MTCO2e, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.

Table 4-16: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 402
Area 1
Energy 116
Water 4
Waste 9
Total Project Operation Emissions 531
Project Construction Emissions 20
Total Project Emissions 551
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).

Overall, the proposed residential Project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, the proposed Project meets the air quality-related criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).

WATER QUALITY
The Project site is within the San Gabriel River watershed and under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), which sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within its region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives). Water quality standards for all ground and surface waters overseen by the LARWQCB are documented in its Basin Plan, and the regulatory program of the LARWQCB is designed to minimize and control discharges to surface and groundwater, largely through permitting, such that water quality standards are effectively attained.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality.

Additionally, construction would use heavy equipment and construction-related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and, if mixed with surface water runoff could wash into and pollute waters.

These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plant (SWPPP). Construction of the Project would disturb

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 61
more than one acre of soil; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as:
• Prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped areas;
• Perimeter gravel bags or silt fences to prevent offsite transport of sediment; • Storm drain inlet protection (filter fabric gravel bags and straw wattles), with gravel bag check dams within paved roadways;
• Regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction and soil binders for forecasted wind storms;
• Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal; • Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas; • Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms;
• Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City roadways;
• Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping.

Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City’s construction permitting process would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
The new residential uses would introduce pollutants such as chemicals from household cleaners, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediments from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles.

These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality.

Thus, the proposed Project would be required to comply with existing regulations that limit the potential for pollutants to discharge from the site.

Under the City of San Dimas Municipal Code Chapter 14.13, the Project would be required to implement Low Impact Development (LID) design principles to minimize adverse impacts from stormwater runoff. As described in the Hydrology Report (Appendix I) prepared for the Project, onsite storm drain pipes, catch basins and inlets would be implemented that would be sized to accommodate 25-year peak flow.

Stormwater would drain to the southeast portion of the site where an underground infiltration system of perforated CMP pipes would be implemented to treat stormwater. However, as described in the Hydrology Study prepared for the Project, the proposed peak flow does not exceed the existing condition, therefore no detention would be needed for the site.

With implementation of the LID site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs, and subsequent verification during the plan check and permitting process, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor would it otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 62
Overall, the proposed residential Project would not result in any significant effects relating to water quality; therefore, the proposed Project meets the water quality related criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).
e. Criterion Section 15332(e): Utilities: The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The utilities necessary to construct and operate the proposed Project (electric, natural gas, trash, water, and sewage) would be adequately provided by existing utility service systems. The Project site is located in an urbanized and developed area. The proposed Project would connect to existing utility service lines surrounding the Project site, within West Covina Boulevard. Trash collection services would be arranged prior to the issuance of building permits. All service confirmations would be addressed prior to occupancy. Given the Project size and its location within an area that is currently served by utilities, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposed Project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e).

4.2. EXCEPTIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS
In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), this CEQA document also assesses whether any of the exceptions to qualifying for the Class 32 categorical exemption for an Infill Project are present. The following analysis compares the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the Project.
a. Criterion 15300.2(a): Location: Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.

The Project does not qualify for an exemption under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11. The Project is located within an urban developed area and is not located within a sensitive environment. In addition, the Project would not result in any impacts on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. Therefore, the exception under criterion 15300.2(a) is not applicable. b. Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact: All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects with similar uses over a similar geological area, over time is significant.

The effects of the proposed Project would generally be beneficial, as the proposed Project would create needed housing in the City of San Dimas on a minimally utilized parcel of land. The proposed Project would redevelop a site that is partially developed with two residences, a barn, and a garage building in an urbanized area. The Project site is already served by utilities and public services, as well as transportation.

Any construction effects would be temporary, confined to the Project vicinity, and reduced to a less than significant level by implementing existing applicable regulatory requirements. No successive projects of the same or similar use within the vicinity of the Project are known or expected to occur over time that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Furthermore, as discussed throughout this justification document, the proposed Project would not result in significant environmental impacts that would be capable of combining with impacts from other cumulative projects to result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (b) does not apply to the Project.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 63
c. Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effects: A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

There are no known unusual circumstances that are applicable to the Project, and which may result in a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Project consists of the development of 37 detached residential dwelling units within a developed area that is served by utilities and transportation. The Project site would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code. The provision of additional housing would not introduce a new activity to the area that could result in a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) does not apply to the Project.
d. Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highways: A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The Project site is not located within a State scenic highway corridor. The nearest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway to the Project site is the Angeles Crest Highway (2) that runs through the San Gabriel Mountains (Caltrans, 2018). The Angeles Crest Highway is located over 17 miles north of the Project site and is not visible from the Project site. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) does not apply to the Project.
e. Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites: A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The Project site is partially developed with two residences, a barn, and a garage building. The portion of the site that is undeveloped contains vegetation limited to grasses, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Based on a review of historic photographs, the southern portion of the site had been used for agricultural operations up until the early 1960s. As determined in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Project (included as Appendix F), the site is not included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. In addition, to evaluate potential impacts from historical agricultural uses in the southern portion of the site, a Phase II ESA was prepared to conduct soil and soil gas sampling (included as Appendix G). According to the Phase II ESA, concentrations of arsenic were not found and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were below residential screening thresholds. The Phase II also determined that all reported volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations would be less than their respective residential screening levels based on an attenuation factor of 0.001 (Appendix G).

As such, the Project site is not listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 and the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the Project.. f. Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources: A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources.

As previously described, the Project site is partially developed with two residences, a barn, and a garage building. The existing buildings were determined to be of historic age with one of the residences dating back to 1901. As such, a Historical Resources Analysis Report (HRAR) was prepared to evaluate whether the property qualifies as a historical resource pursuant to CEQA and is eligible for listing. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines ‘historic resources’ as resources that are listed in, or determined to be eligible for

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 64
listing by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

As such, the structures on the property were evaluated using the CRHR criteria which deem a structure significant and eligible for listing if it is (a) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or (b) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or if it (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or if it (d) has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The HRAR found that there was no indication that the property made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of agricultural or economic development history in San Dimas and further that the property does not retain adequate integrity to convey significance under the theme of economic development ca. 1887- 1940, therefore it is not considered eligible under CRHR Criterion 1. Further, the HRAR determined that the company and the family that was most closely associated with the property does not rise to the necessary level of significance to be considered eligible under CRHR Criterion 2. Additionally, the HRAR determined that while the barn, one of the residences (ranch style), and garage building do not strongly represent their respective architecture styles or building types, the other residence (Queen Anne style) is considered a unique and somewhat rare local example of the Queen Anne style. While this makes the residence somewhat significant, the home does not retain adequate integrity to convey significance to make it eligible for listing under Criterion 3. Lastly, research and analysis of the subject property has not yielded information important in prehistory or history and further study of the property is not likely to yield important information, thus the property is not considered eligible under Criterion 4. As such, the property does not meet the definition of a historical resource pursuant to the CEQA guidelines thus implementation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts to historic resources. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the Project. Despite the property being ineligible for listing, the Project applicant has opted to prepare a voluntary Level II Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation package for the home to ensure the Queen Anne structure is documented and available in the City’s records.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the Project is eligible for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption in accordance with Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the proposed Project meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and it would not have a significant effect on the environment, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption may be prepared for the Project.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 65

5. REFERENCES
Caltrans. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from California State Scenic Highways: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways Converse Consultants. (2024a). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. Appendix F.

Converse Consultants. (2024b). Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report. Appendix G.

EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. Appendix B.

EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis for 901 W Covina Blvd, San Dimas. Appendix H.

Hernandez Environmental Services. (2025). Biological Resources Assessment for 901 W. Covina Road, San Dimas, CA. Appendix C.

Steve F. Andresen Arborist Services. (2024). Arborist Report. Appendix A.

United Civil, Inc. (2024). Final Hydrology, Hydraulic, and LID Study. Appendix I.

Vista Environmental. (2025). Noise Impact Analysis. Appendix E.

901 W Covina Blvd Project
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Checklist
City of San Dimas 66
End of document.

ARBORIST REPORT
901 W. Covina Blvd
San Dimas, California
Prepared for:

RC Homes, Inc
550 N. Larchmont Blvd., Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90004
Attn: Timothy Sales, Vice President
Prepared by:

Steve F. Andresen
Arborist Services
5516 Inspiration Drive
Riverside, CA 92506
Report date: September 18, 2024
First revision date: November 6, 2024
Sites Inspections: August 3rd, 15th, and 25th, 2024
ATTACHMENT 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE……………………………………………………………………………………………..Page 1
SUMMARY…………………………………………………..………………………...…………..Page 1
PROJECT TREES……………...…..………………………………………………….……….Pages 1 - 2 PROTECTED TREES……………………………………………………….………………………Page 2
FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………………….….Pages 2 - 3
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..…..…Page 3
TREE LETTER GRADES…………………………………………………………………………….Page 3
TREE LOCATION MAP……………………………………………….……………………..Pages 4 - 5 TREE SPREADSHEET…………………………………………………………………...……Pages 6 - 10 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS…………………………………………….Page 11

901 W. Covina Blvd
Prepared by Steve F. Andresen
November 6, 2024

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of this assignment is to give a comprehensive report of the existing trees located at 901 W. Covina Blvd, San Dimas, California (“Property”) pursuant to the City of San Dimas Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 903 (“Ordinance. 903”) as well as guidelines established by the International Society of Arboriculture (“Guidelines”). o On-site visual inspection of existing trees
o Identify trees with common and botanical names
o Provide general specifications: DBH (Diameter at breast height), overall tree height and width. Palm BTH (Brown trunk height). Provide a site map with existing tree locations
o Provide comments as to their current health and condition using a letter grade system A – E
o Trees number tagged using round metal ID tags.

SUMMARY
The Property is a developed property located in a mixed-use neighborhood on the northerly side of West Covina Boulevard west of State Highway 57 and east of South Lone Hill Avenue in the City of San Dimas. It is bounded on the west by New Song Church and on the east by Charter Oak Mobile Home Estates. Railroad tracks used by Metrolink are located at the northerly property line.

Improvements include an unoccupied two-story home, occupied guest/worker quarters, barn, and other improvements such as chain link fencing, and landscaping. At one time, a small scale above ground container plant nursery business was conducted on the southerly portion of the Property and remnants of the abandoned operation remain visible. An active bee keeping operation is located behind the barn near the railroad tracks.

PROJECT TREES
Approximately one hundred forty-three (143) trees were surveyed, and they include the following varieties: Coast Live Oak, Olive, Pepper, Ash, Citrus, Canary Island Palm, Carrotwood, and Pines. To the east of the two-story home is the garden area where most of the fruit trees are. Hedge rows of Juniper line the garden area. A privacy hedge of Pepper trees lines the property along Covina Blvd. The entry and driveway leading to the homes are lined on one side with Peppers, Oaks and Bougainvillea creating a solid wall of greenery. Page 216 – 427
901 W. Covina Blvd
Prepared by Steve F. Andresen
November 6, 2024

Trees such as Oak, Ash, and Pine were planted as landscape trees for the two-story residence. Many smaller growing trees throughout the Property look to have been seedlings generated from other trees onsite causing mass groves of Carrotwood, Ash, and Pepper trees.

The lower section of the Property was used as a small plant nursery with remnants of shade structures and weed control fabric pinned down in place. All the trees growing in this area were originally in containers not larger than fifteen gallons and have rooted grown into trees.

Please note that the above tree survey does not include the individual tree count pf the three (3) screening hedges or rows and are indicated as groupings on the attached Property maps.

PROTECTED TREES
Forty (40) trees meet the protected criteria pursuant to Ordinance. 903 summarized below:

1. Any oak tree with a diameter of 8 inches or greater measured at thirty-six inches

2. Any other species with a diameter of ten inches or greater measured at thirty-six inches

3. Any other multi-trunk species with a combined diameter measurement of thirtyeight inches with at least one trunk with a minimum of four inches measured at thirty-six inches
• Coast Live Oak - diameters ranging from of 8.5” – 44”  Twenty-two (22) trees
• Other single and multi-trunk species include Ash, Cypress, Ficus, Olive, Pine, and Cedar - diameters ranging from 10 “- 66”
 Eighteen (18) trees

FINDINGS
On August 3rd, 15th, and 25th, 2024, I made my site inspections of the Property. The trees and palms were visual from ground level and no climbing was needed to inspect any areas within the Property. The area behind the barn near the railroad tracks is currently used for bee keeping and was deemed unsafe to enter and inspect.

901 W. Covina Blvd
Prepared by Steve F. Andresen
November 6, 2024

The Property is unoccupied except for the presence of caretakers. The home site and nursery operation appear to have been vacated for some time. Nominal watering is done by the caretakers and there is no evidence of routine tree care or landscape maintenance activities taking place on the Property. Therefore, the trees and palms are in average to below average in health and condition.

Protected trees varieties include Coast Live Oak, Ash, Cypress, Ficus, Olive, Pine, and Cedar in average to below average health and condition.

CONCLUSION
The former residence is unoccupied and except for the caretaker’s nominal watering, the trees are in average to below average condition. Approval to remove or relocate any protected trees as defined by Ordinance. 903 must be obtained from the City of San Dimas Planning Department.

LETTER GRADES FOR TREE CONDITION AND ASTHETIC QUALITY
The tree list includes tree height, width and caliper, and a letter grading system. The grading system utilizes letters A to F to indicate the trees’ current health and aesthetic quality with a comment for each tree as necessary. Following is a description of each grade:

A: Tree in outstanding condition. A tree with an “A” grade will have an excellent trunk and branch structure, vigorous new growth, and healthy leaf color.

B: Tree in good condition. A tree with a “B” grade will have good trunk and branch structure with some slight defects that may not adversely impact the trees long term condition. Leaf color and general health are good.

C: Tree in average condition. Most trees growing in a landscape setting are in average condition. Trees may have branching and trunk defects from improper ongoing pruning and maintenance practices. In general, letter “C” grade trees are healthy and will continue to grow in the landscape.

D: Tree in below average condition. A tree with a “D” grade will have a poor trunk and branch structure, limb and leaf die back with stunted growth and overall plant stress.

E: Tree in severe decline should be removed. Some grade “E” trees may look healthy from a distance but may have major trunk or structural defects warranting removal. Page 218 – 427
1 2
3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25 26
27 28
29 30 57 31
32 56 33 34
35 36 41
37 34 54 55
52 53
39 42 40
43 46
47 49 51
48 44 45 50
79 58
78 60
59 62
61 64 63 68
67 66 65
70 69 77
73 71
76 72
74 75
80 81 84 83 82 85
86 87
90 89 88
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100 102
103
101 104
105 106
107
108 109
110
111 113
114 115
112 117
116 118
119 120
121
122
Signifies Mature Significant Tree Preservation
City Ordinance 913 Signifies Regular Landscape Tree
Not Protected under Ordinance 913
Tree locations and species verification done by Steve Andresen / Arborist WE-2170A / August 2024

124
123
126 125 127
128 129
130 131 132 133 134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
143
142
Signifies Mature Significant Tree Preservation
City Ordinance 913
Signifies Regular Landscape Tree
Not Protected under Ordinance 913
Hedgerow of Brazilian Pepper trees mixed with small Olive and California Peppers Trees do not conform with city Ordinance 913 for significant tree.

Mixed Hedge
Mixed Hedgerow

RC HOMES SAN DIMAS

PROJECT

BASIC TREE INVENTORY
TREE
TAG NO. SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT (FEET)
SPREAD
(FEET)
DIAMETER @
BREAST
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
HEALTH
GRADE

AESTHETIC
GRADE

SIGNIFICANT
TREE

DESIGNATION
REMOVE

YES / NO COMMENTS
1 Ceratonia siliqua CAROB 16 18 42 M D C YES YES Rotted main trunk with branch regrowth 2 Pinus halapensis ALEPPO PINE 70 30 18 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 3 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 10 10 10 M C C YES YES Bush form Coast Live Oak 4 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 12 8 4 C C NO YES Good health and condition for species 5 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 18 9 5.5 C C NO YES Good health and condition for species 6 Brachychiton acerfolias FLAME BOTTLETREE 19 12 14 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 7 Fraxinus uhdei SHAMEL ASH 18 13 21 M D D NO YES Cut off stump with regrowth 8 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 17 8 6 C C-D NO YES Growing off foundation of residence 9 Fraxinus uhdei SHAMEL ASH 18 8 5.5 C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 10 Fraxinus uhdei SHAMEL ASH 25 16 22 M C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 11 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 15 9 8.5 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 12 Cupaniopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 14 8 12 M C-D C-D NO YES Broken off with multiple branch growth 13 Cupaniopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 15 9 10 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 14 Cupaniopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 12 8 11 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 15 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 14 9 9 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 16 Carya PECAN 12 7 3 C-D C-D NO YES Poor structured tree 17 Cupaniopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 10 6 16 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor structured tree 18 Fraxinus uhdei SHAMEL ASH 12 5 10 M C-D C-D NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 19 Fraxinus uhdei SHAMEL ASH 16 9 7 C-D C-D NO YES Poor structured tree 20 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 15 11 15 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 21 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 10 9 6 M C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 22 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 14 9 4 C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 23 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 12 10 10 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 24 Cupaniopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 13 8 4.5 C-D C-D NO YES Poor structured tree 25 Cupaniopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 12 10 6 C-D C-D NO YES Poor structured tree 26 Carya PECAN 40 22 16 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 27 Eucalyptus species EUCALYPTUS 18 16 29 E E YES YES Stumped tree with branch regrowth 28 Diospyros PERSIMMON 12 13 15 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 29 Prunus persica PEACH 8 12 12 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 30 Ficus sp. FIG 18 10 8 D D NO YES Poor health and condition 31 Citrus LEMON 8 9 4 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 32 Citrus LIME 10 12 8 C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 33 Ficus carica FIG 8 7 5 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape November 6, 2024
Prepared by:

Steve F. Andresen
WE-2170A

RC HOMES SAN DIMAS

PROJECT

BASIC TREE INVENTORY
TREE
TAG NO. SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT (FEET)
SPREAD
(FEET)
DIAMETER @
BREAST
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
HEALTH
GRADE

AESTHETIC
GRADE

SIGNIFICANT
TREE

DESIGNATION
REMOVE

YES / NO COMMENTS
34 Ficus species FIG 12 9 11 M D D NO YES Poor health and condition 35 Ficus species FIG 13 9 6 C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 36 Ficus species FIG 14 16 29 M C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 37 Citrus LIME 9 11 14 M C C NO YES fruit tree form and shape. Yellow foliage 38 Cupressus sempervirens CYPRESS 40 7 10 C C YES YES Good to average health and condition for species 39 Cupressus sempervirens CYPRESS 40 7 10 C C YES YES Good to average health and condition for species 40 Citrus LEMON 9 10 14 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 41 Ficus benjamina WEEPING FIG 14 11 18 M C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 42 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 15 8 6 C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 43 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 16 12 12.5 M C-D C-D NO YES Multiple trunk tree 44 Olea europaea OLIVE 20 15 12 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 45 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 40 30 35 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 46 Phoenix canariensis CANARY ISLAND PALM 45* N/A N/A C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 47 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 25 20 15 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 48 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 23 23 26 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 49 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 20 16 4.5 C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 50 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 60 40 44 C C YES YES Good to average health and condition for species 51 Carya PECAN 50 25 18 C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 52 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 20 15 5.5 C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 53 Olea europaea OLIVE 18 15 4 C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location 54 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 16 12 3 C C NO YES Average condition for species and growing location. Leaning trunk 55 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 45 30 MLT 14 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 56 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 18 9 30 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 57 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 16 8 10.5 M C C YES YES Average condition for species and growing location 58 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 70 30 66 D D YES YES Severely topped. Poor structural condition 59 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 23 15 21 M C-D C-D NO YES Multiple trunk tree 60 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 13 12 13 M C-D C-D NO YES Multiple trunk tree 61 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 16 13 15 M C-D C-D NO YES Multiple trunk tree 62 Schinus molle CALIFORNIA PEPPER 16 15 6 C C NO YES Average for species and growing conditions 63 Ligustrum japonicum PRIVET 12 8 6 C-D C-D NO YES Poor condition 64 Ficus carica FIG 11 15 28 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 65 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 18 12 18 M C-D C-D NO YES Multiple trunk tree 66 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 19 16 12 C-D C-D YES YES Multiple trunk tree November 6, 2024
Prepared by:

Steve F. Andresen
WE-2170A

RC HOMES SAN DIMAS

PROJECT

BASIC TREE INVENTORY
TREE
TAG NO. SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT (FEET)
SPREAD
(FEET)
DIAMETER @
BREAST
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
HEALTH
GRADE

AESTHETIC
GRADE

SIGNIFICANT
TREE

DESIGNATION
REMOVE

YES / NO COMMENTS
67 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 20 15 7 M C-D C-D NO YES Multiple trunk tree 68 Cedrus deodara CEDAR 40 30 31 M C-D C-D NO YES Topped specimen tree. Poor structural condition 69 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 13 11 12 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 70 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 16 11 4.5 C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 71 Cupiopsis anacardioides CARROTWOOD 13 10 4 C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 72 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 14 10 4.5 C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 73 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 13 11 35 C-D C-D YES YES Average health and condition. Poor structure 74 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 15 12 4 C-D C-D NO YES poor health and condition 75 Olea europaea OLIVE 16 15 17 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 76 Olea europaea OLIVE 12 14 9 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 77 Olea europaea OLIVE 10 12 7.5 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 78 Phoenix canariensis CANARY ISLAND PALM 40* N/A N/A C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 79 Pinus pinea ITALIAN STONE PINE 65 40 27 C C YES YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 80 Cedrus deodara CEDAR 60 28 13 C-D C YES YES Stressed condition with lower branch die back 81 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 16 13 8 C-D C-D YES YES Leaning heavily. Poor condition 82 Olea europaea OLIVE 9 8 4 C C NO YES Average health and condition 83 Arbutus MEDRONE 16 16 13 M C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 84 Olea europaea OLIVE 8 8 7.5 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 85 Phoenix canariensis CANARY ISLAND PALM 4 BTH 0 0 C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 86 Zelkova serrata ZELKOVA 8 8 18 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 87 Yucca YUCCA 7 4 0 D D NO YES Poor health and condition 88 Zelkova serrata ZELKOVA 8 10 14 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 89 Zelkova serrata ZELKOVA 9 12 6 C C NO YES Average health and condition 90 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 10 9 7 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 91 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 16 12 10 C-D C-D YES YES Poor health and condition 92 Olea europaea OLIVE 15 12 8 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 93 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 18 15 11 C C YES YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 94 Schinus terebinthefolias BRAZILIAN PEPPER 15 13 10 C-D C-D YES YES Average health and condition 95 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 12 9 10 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 96 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 14 10 7.5 M C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 97 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 13 11 5 C C NO YES Average health and condition 98 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 13 9 9 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 99 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 18 16 10 C C YES YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions November 6, 2024
Prepared by:

Steve F. Andresen
WE-2170A

RC HOMES SAN DIMAS

PROJECT

BASIC TREE INVENTORY
TREE
TAG NO. SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT (FEET)
SPREAD
(FEET)
DIAMETER @
BREAST
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
HEALTH
GRADE

AESTHETIC
GRADE

SIGNIFICANT
TREE

DESIGNATION
REMOVE

YES / NO COMMENTS
100 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 15 9 5.5 C C NO YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 101 Olea europaea OLIVE 11 8 6.5 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 102 Cercis RED BUD 12 9 8 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 103 Baccharis COYOTE BUSH 12 13 18 M C C NO YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 104 Olea europaea OLIVE 14 11 13 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 105 Optunia PRICKLY PEAR CACTUS 9 18 0 D D NO YES Heavily infested with Mealy Bug pest 106 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 11 6 4 C C NO YES Average health and condition 107 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 12 7 5 C C NO YES Average health and condition 108 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 10 7 5.5 C C NO YES Average health and condition 109 Lagerstroemia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 9 10 10 M C C NO YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 110 Ficus species FIG 16 12 10 C-D C-D YES YES Poor structured tree 111 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 12 9 6 C C NO YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 112 Lagerstroemia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 11 9 13 M C C NO YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 113 Yucca YUCCA 12 10 0 D D NO YES Poor health and condition 114 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 18 15 13.5 M C C YES YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 115 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 15 10 11 M C C YES YES Average health and condition for species and growing conditions 116 Olea europaea OLIVE 13 10 10.5 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 117 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 10 6 9 M C-D C-D NO YES Poor health and condition 118 Schinus molle CALIFORNIA PEPPER 13 8 5 C-D C-D NO YES Leaning trunk structure 119 Ficus species FIG 18 20 10 D D YES YES Poor structured tree 120 Ficus species FIG 16 15 17.5 M C-D C-D NO YES Average health and condition 121 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 10 8 6 M D D NO YES Smal multi trunk tree 122 Olea europaea OLIVE 10 9 6 M C C NO YES Average health and condition 123 Olea europaea OLIVE 50 40 28 M C C NO YES Good to average health and condition for species 124 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 30 30 16 M C C YES YES Good to average health and condition for species 125 Olea europaea OLIVE 20 18 22 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 126 Olea europaea OLIVE 18 16 10 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 127 Washingtonia robusta MEXICAN FAN PALM 70* N/A N/A C C NO YES Average health and condition 128 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 28 13 6 D D NO YES Poor health and condition 129 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 30 15 11 M D D NO YES Poor health and condition 130 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 14 9 11 M D D NO YES Poor health and condition 131 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 20 18 19 M D C YES YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 132 Ulmus parvifolia ELM 25 28 10 D C YES YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container November 6, 2024
Prepared by:

Steve F. Andresen
WE-2170A

RC HOMES SAN DIMAS

PROJECT

BASIC TREE INVENTORY
TREE
TAG NO. SPECIES COMMON NAME HEIGHT (FEET)
SPREAD
(FEET)
DIAMETER @
BREAST
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
HEALTH
GRADE

AESTHETIC
GRADE

SIGNIFICANT
TREE

DESIGNATION
REMOVE

YES / NO COMMENTS
133 Ulmus parvifolia ELM 20 20 7.5 D C-D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 134 Fraxinus uhdei ASH 18 10 18 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 135 Diospyros PERSIMMON 10 12 8 M C C NO YES Fruit tree form and shape 136 Schinus terebinthefolias BRAZILIAN PEPPER 20 20 15 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 137 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 30 20 7 D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 138 Olea europaea OLIVE 10 10 8 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 139 Olea europaea OLIVE 25 28 11 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 140 Olea europaea OLIVE 28 25 19.5 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 141 Olea europaea OLIVE 18 16 18 M D D NO YES Root bound tree growing out of 15gallon container 142 Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 28 20 18 D D YES YES Poor structure from heavy pruning 143 Schinus molle CALIFORNIA PEPPER 30 20 38 M D D YES YES Poor structure from heavy pruning NOTES:
* Brown trunk measurement
M Multi Trunk Tree
E – Severe decline that should be removed: Some grade “E” trees may look healthy from a distance but will have major trunk or structural defects warranting removal.

LETTER GRADE LEGEND:

A – Outstanding condition: Trees with an “A” grade will have excellent trunk and branch structure, vigorous new growth and healthy leaf color.

B – Good condition: Trees with a “B” grade will have good trunk and branch structure with some slight defects that will not adversely affect the tree long term condition. Leaf color and general health are good.

C – Average condition: Most trees growing in a landscape setting will be in average condition. Trees may have branching and trunk defects from improper pruning and maintenance. In general letter “C” grade trees are healthy and will continue to grow in the landscape.

D – Below average condition: Tree with a “D” grade will have poor trunk and branch structure, limb and leaf die back with stunted growth and overall plant stress.

Significant Tree Designation: Pursuant to the City of San Dimas Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 903

1. Any oak tree with a diameter of 8 inches or greater measured at thirty-six inches

2. Any other species with a diameter of ten inches or greater measured at thirty-six inches

3. Any other multi-trunk species with a combined diameter measurement of thirty-eight inches with at least one trunk with a minimum of four inches measured at thirty-six inches November 6, 2024
Prepared by:

Steve F. Andresen
WE-2170A

901 W. Covina Blvd
Prepared by Steve F. Andresen
November 6, 2024

QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
I am a certified arborist in California # WE-2170A with the International Society of Arboriculture and qualified to make this report.

My inspection was a visual examination and based on the condition of the trees at the time of inspection.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Direct any questions or comments to:

Steve F. Andresen / Arborist Services
5516 Inspiration Drive
Riverside, CA 92506
ISA WE-2170A (951) 288-3798
[email protected]
Steve F. Andresen
Certified Arborist
WE-2170A
Attachments: 1. Maps

2. Tree Inventory

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard
San Dimas, CA 91773
Prepared For/ Submitted To:

EPD Solutions, Inc.

Attn: Konstanza Dobreva, JD
3333 Michelson Dr., Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Prepared By:

Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
7705 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 1
La Mesa, CA 91942
www.urbanapreservation.com
October 2024
ATTACHMENT 7

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC |October 2024 | Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Historical Resource Analysis Report (HRAR) was prepared by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana) to evaluate the 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property in San Dimas for significance and eligibility under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) to determine if the property qualifies as a historical resource pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Located on the north side of W. Covina Boulevard west of California State Route 57 and sited directly south of the Southern Pacific Railroad line, the subject property comprises roughly 3.24 acres located on Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 8385-006-027 and includes four historic-era buildings constructed over two distinct periods of development: a two-story Queen Anne style residence built in ca. 1901 with an ancillary barn, and a single-story ranch style residence built in 1964 with an ancillary garage-and-apartment. For clarification purposes, in this HRAR “historic-era” means at least 45 years old (built earlier than 1979) but not necessarily evaluated as significant. A “contemporary period” property is one that was built after 1979 and is less than 45 years old. There are no contemporary period buildings on the property.

The 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property was originally part of a 20-acre ranch initially developed with the existing Queen Anne style residence in ca. 1901 and planted with citrus trees over 10-acres by 1902. The 20- acre holding was subdivided in 1920. The property was used for citrus cultivation until the 1950s; however, there is no substantive evidence to indicate that significant citrus production activities occurred at the property. All citrus activity ceased by the early 1960s, and in 1964 the existing ranch style residence and garage were built on the property. In 1991, the Queen Anne residence and associated barn were surveyed as potentially significant in a citywide historical resource survey under the context of economic development in San Dimas, 1887-1940.

This HRAR is an independent evaluation of the 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property, building on the 1991 survey and incorporating additional contextual and property-specific research for significance and eligibility under the CRHR to determine if the property qualifies as an historical resource pursuant to CEQA.

Report preparers are Alexandrea Baker, MCP, Douglas Kupel, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Historian and Principal Investigator, and Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal / Manager. All Urbana personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Site work and field survey activities were completed in July 2024. Background research and reporting occurred in July and August 2024.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC |October 2024 | Page iii As part of this HRAR, the 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property, with four historic-era buildings, is opined ineligible for designation or listing on the CRHR.

The 1901 Queen Anne residence, at 901 W. Covina Boulevard, appears ineligible under CRHR Criterion 1 and 2 as it has not been directly associated with significant events or individuals in the economic development history of San Dimas. It is a byproduct of the early citrus period in the city, but no evidence was located to support a positive eligibility conclusion that the home and 3.24-acre parcel yielded significant crops or that its early owners maintained a significant role in the citrus industry. The 1901 Queen Anne residence, at 901 W. Covina Boulevard, appears to be a unique example of a Queen Anne style residence dating to the early days of San Dimas ; however, the building lacks the necessary integrity to make it eligible for the CRHR Criterion 3. It has experienced multiple alterations including several additions and porch enclosures, roofline changes, and some window changes.

Historic and current maps, showing the property location are included in Appendix A; Building Records are included in Appendix B; Ownership and occupancy data is included in Appendix C; Historic and current views of the property are included in Appendix D; Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms are included in Appendix E; and preparer qualifications are included in Appendix F.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC |October 2024 | Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ii I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 6 Methodological Approach and Report Organization...........................................................................6 Research.......................................................................................................................................................6 Site Visit and Field Survey............................................................................................................................. 7 Technical Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 7 II. PRESERVATION PLANNING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK................................................... 9 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) & Historical Resources .................................................9 Integrity and the California Register............................................................................................................ 10 City of San Dimas Historic Preservation Program ............................................................................. 11 III. HISTORICAL THEMES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA ..................... 14 City of San Dimas ............................................................................................................................. 14 Agricultural History of San Dimas ............................................................................................................... 16 Queen Anne Architectural Style........................................................................................................ 18 Ranch Architectural Style .................................................................................................................20 IV. PROPERTY HISTORY....................................................................................................... 22 Ownership and Occupancy History...................................................................................................22 Construction History......................................................................................................................... 25 V. ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 39 901 W. Covina Boulevard Dwelling ................................................................................................... 39 901 W. Covina Boulevard Barn.......................................................................................................... 41 903 W. Covina Boulevard Dwelling ................................................................................................... 41 903 W. Covina Boulevard Garage-Apartment ...................................................................................42 VI. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION & REGULATORY CONCLUSIONS..........................................47 Integrity............................................................................................................................................ 50 Regulatory Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 52 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................... 52 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................. 54 Endnotes .......................................................................................................................................... 55 Figures
Figure 1. Study Area Location .................................................................................................................8 Figure 2. Excerpt of City of San Dimas Historic Structure List ............................................................... 13 EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC |October 2024 | Page v Figure 3. 1934 Aerial Image of the subject property and surrounding area. ...........................................29 Figure 4. 1934 detail view...................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 5. 1946 Aerial Image................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 6. 1948 Aerial Image................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 7. 1952 Aerial image of the subject property and surrounding area. ........................................... 33 Figure 8. 1965 Aerial Image................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 9. 1994 aerial of the subject property. ........................................................................................ 35 Figure 10. 2003 aerial of the subject property........................................................................................ 36 Figure 11. 2013 aerial of the subject property. ....................................................................................... 37 Figure 12. 2023 Aerial Image. ................................................................................................................ 38 Appendices
Appendix A – Project Location Maps
Appendix B – Building Records
Appendix C – Ownership and Occupancy
Appendix D – Historic and Current Views
Appendix E – DPR Forms & Previous Recordation
Appendix F – Preparer Qualifications
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 6 I. INTRODUCTION
This HRAR was prepared by Urbana to evaluate the 901-903 W. Covina Blvd property in San Dimas. The property may be subject to future discretionary projects and has been evaluated for significance and eligibility under the CRHR to determine if the property qualifies as an historical resource pursuant to CEQA.

Identified as APN 8385-006-027, the evaluated property and proposed project area is a 3.24-acre parcel located on the north side of W. Covina Blvd, south of the Southern Pacific Railroad line, with the New Song Church religious property to the west and the Charter Oak Mobile Home community to the east. The larger setting includes a mix of commercial, industrial, educational, and residential properties dating from the 1960s through the 2000s. Project location maps, historic and current, are included in Appendix A.

Methodological Approach and Report Organization
The methodological approach undertaken for this HRAR consisted of three major tasks – contextual and property specific research, a site visit and field survey, and technical analysis.

Research
Contextual and property-specific research included a review of multiple local, regional, state, and national sources. Los Angeles County regional newspapers were searched for references to the property using the California Digital Newspaper Collection at the University of California (UC) Riverside and via Genealogy Bank and Newspapers.com. Biographical and genealogical research for past owners and occupants was additionally completed using Ancestry.com. A review of maps, aerial imagery and photographs via National Environmental Title Research HistoricAerials.com, the UC Santa Barbara FrameFinder collection, the University of Southern California Photo Collection, and the Los Angeles Public Library photo and map collections. Beyond newspapers and genealogical data, contextual research on San Dimas and the citrus industry was obtained from Calisphere, the United States Library of Congress, and regional libraries and archives. Property-specific research was obtained from the City of San Dimas via a California Public Records Act Request. This yielded building permits and other land records including 1991 Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Forms prepared for the Queen Anne dwelling and associated barn by Judith P. Triem. The buildings are addressed as 903 W. Covina Boulevard in the 1991 HRI Forms.

Building records are included in Appendix B. Ownership and occupancy data is included in Appendix C.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 7 Site Visit and Field Survey
Urbana’s Alexandrea Baker conducted the site visit in July 2024. The purpose of the site visit was to observe and photograph all buildings and structures at the property and the surrounding environs. Additional investigation occurred as part of post-processing. The site photography and subsequent analysis allowed the subject matter experts to understand and identify the architectural styles and character-defining features present, and to evaluate building alterations and development patterns associated with the parcel and its environs. Historic and current views of the property are included in Appendix D.

Technical Analysis
The purpose of this HRAR is to evaluate the subject property for eligibility under the criteria of the CRHR, and to assist the project applicant and city staff in the decision-making process related to future proposed discretionary projects at the 901-903 W. Covina Blvd property. This report was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, this HRAR includes a discussion of the subject property – its history, the architectural origins and current appearance of the buildings and structures, an evaluation of significance under the eligibility criteria of the CRHR, and a historical resource impacts analysis and regulatory conclusion under CEQA. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms, with a CRHR status code assigned, are included in Appendix E.

Report preparers are Alexandrea Baker, M.C.P., Douglas Kupel, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Historian and Principal Investigator, and Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal / Manager. All Urbana personnel meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Personnel resumes are included in Appendix F.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 8 Figure 1. Study Area Location
Building A: Queen Anne Style Residence
Building B: Barn
Building C: Ranch Style Residence
Building D: Garage Building
Property Boundary:

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 9 II. PRESERVATION PLANNING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Following is an overview of the historic preservation regulatory framework and eligibility criteria relative to future actions proposed within the Proposed Project boundaries.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) & Historical Resources Pursuant to the CEQA PRC § 21084.1, any project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. PRC § 5020.1(q) defines a “substantial adverse change” as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.

Historical resources are defined as “a resource listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (CRHR) (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1; 14 CCR 15064.5). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the term “historical resources” includes the following:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1).

This is regarded as a “Mandatory Resource”.
• 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, will 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. This is regarded as a “Presumptive Resource”.
• 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 to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. This is regarded as a “Discretionary Resource”.

Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1) including the following:

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 10

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

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past;

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

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. • The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, 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 an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

The California Register includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest.

Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the California Register and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC Section 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850).

The California Register statute (PRC Section 5024.1) and regulations (14 CCR Section 4850 et seq.) require that at the time a local jurisdiction nominates an historic resources survey for listing in the California Register, the survey must be updated if it is more than five years old. This is to ensure that a nominated survey is as accurate as possible at the time it is listed in the California Register. However, this does not mean that resources identified in a survey that is more than five years old need not be considered “historical resources” for purposes of CEQA. Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the California Register.1 Integrity and the California Register
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historical resources eligible for EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 11 listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.

Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for CRHR listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.

It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, but they may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

City of San Dimas Historic Preservation Program
The City of San Dimas does not maintain a Historic Preservation Ordinance. The San Dimas General Plan Conservation Element contains a ‘Historic’ section. This section indicates that there are twenty-four structures of cultural and historic importance within the City, identified by the San Dimas Historical Society.

These structures are not listed but are identified as being clustered in the residential areas north and south of Bonita Avenue between Cataract Avenue and San Dimas Avenue, and are part of the San Dima Historical Society walking tour that was taking place. The Land Use Element of the General Plan references the citywide survey of historic properties that was being conducted by the Historical Society. In 1991, the City conducted the citywide Historical Resource Survey that identified 320 potentially significant properties and two potential historic districts. The Historic Structures List is not a designated local register, though it has been used as a guide by the City (confirmed through communication with City staff on October 1, 2024). An excerpt of the list of surveyed properties showing the subject property, is included as Figure 2 in the following pages. The 320 surveyed resources are not included in the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Built Environment Database (BERD) for Los Angeles County. The San Dimas listings within the BERD are summarized in Table 1.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 12 Table 1. SHPO-CHRIS BERD Listings in San Dimas
Primary No. Year Built Name Address Street Evaluation Info Not Provided
Brasada
Gravity
Watering
System
District
6Y, 05/25/2018, COE_2013_1025_001
Not Provided 1907 135 E 1ST ST 2S2, 07/29/1999, DOE-19-99-0358- 0000 | 2S2, 07/29/1999, HUD990729D
Not Provided 130 E 2ND ST 6U, 04/21/2004, HUD040329B
Not Provided 1912 138 E 2ND ST 6Y, 05/11/1998, DOE-19-98-0369- 0000 | 6Y, 05/11/1998, HUD980511I
Not Provided 1926 140 E PENN ST 6U, , HUD071205A | 6Y, 09/19/1994, HUD940620AA
Not Provided 1911 235

RAILWAY
ST 6U, 06/27/2005, HUD050627E
Not Provided 1911 4741

S VALLEY
CENTER
AVE
6Y, 02/19/2001, DOE-19-00-0375-
0000 | 6Y, 02/19/2001, HUD010227G
Not Provided 1887 SAN DIMAS
HOTEL 121

SAN DIMAS
AVE
1S, 01/01/1972, 1773-0001-0000 | 1S,
03/16/1972, NPS-72000233-0000 | 1S,
05/08/2009, 537.9-19-0387 | 7P,
01/26/1968, SPHI-LAN-003
Not Provided 1903 137 W 2ND ST 2S2, 02/16/2000, DOE-19-00-0160- 0000 | 2S2, 02/16/2000, HUD000216G
Not Provided 1910 408 W 2ND ST 6Y, 10/06/1997, DOE-19-97-0272-0000 | 6Y, 10/06/1997, HUD971006F
Not Provided 1912 424 W 2ND ST
6Y, 09/19/1994, HUD940620BB | 6Y,
10/06/1997, DOE-19-97-0258-0000 |
6Y, 10/06/1997, HUD971006G
Not Provided 1907 244 W 3RD ST 6U, 11/14/2003, HUD030710C Not Provided 1920 404 W 3RD ST 6U, 07/22/2008, HUD080630B Not Provided 1903 237 W 4TH ST 6U, 05/01/2008, HUD070205D Not Provided 1913 408 W 4TH ST 6U, 12/10/2004, HUD041210B Not Provided 1911 336 W 5TH ST
6U, , HUD071205A | 6Y, 02/16/2000,
DOE-19-00-0142-0000 | 6Y,
02/16/2000, HUD000216G
Not Provided 1922 135 W 6TH ST 6Y, 10/06/1997, DOE-19-97-0237-0000 | 6Y, 10/06/1997, HUD971006G
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 13 Figure 2. Excerpt of City of San Dimas Historic Structure List EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 14 III. HISTORICAL THEMES ASSOCIATED

WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
The subject property is in San Dimas, Los Angeles County, California. The property was examined for significance under the context of San Dimas history, the Queen Anne style of architecture, and Ranch style architecture.

City of San Dimas
San Dimas is located south of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County, approximately 24 miles east of Los Angeles. The area was traditionally home to the Gabrielino-Tongva, an aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles Basin. Spanish missionaries arrived in California in 1769 and gradually constructed a series of 21 missions. One of these, Mission San Gabriel Archangel, was established approximately 16 miles west of the future site of San Dimas. The surrounding area became known as the San Gabriel Valley and the Tongva today are known as the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. The first Americans arrived in the area during the Mexican era in 1826. Led by Jedediah Strong Smith, the American explorers named the area Mud Springs.

In 1837, Ignacio Palomares and Ricardo Vejar received land grants in the area from Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado. They named the land grant Rancho San Jose. Palomares is credited with naming the nearby canyon “San Dimas Canyon.” The city later assumed the same name. The two men evenly divided the land, with Vejar taking the southern half (San Jose De Abajo) and Palomares taking the northern half (San Jose de Ariba). Mud Springs was located within San Jose de Ariba. Luis Arenas, the brother-in-law of Don Palomares obtained a grant as an addition to Rancho San Jose. With this addition, the rancho totaled 22,340 acres; this land included areas that would become the cities of Pomona, Claremont, Chino, La Verne, and San Dimas.

Dennis Clancy and his wife were the first American residents of the area. They came to the area in circa 1862 and acquired a portion of the Rancho San Jose land. Clancy secured a contract with the US Government to supply hay, grain, and horses to the military troops that were passing through the area to Arizona. This developed into a way-station for the army, and later for the Phineas Banning stagecoach line. Clancy hauled lumber from Port San Pedro and constructed a dwelling in Mud Springs. His children were the first Americans born in the area. The family continued to live in Mud Springs until 1870.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 15 Following the Mexican War and the admission of California to the Union, the San Jose Rancho land grant was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. However, after a severe drought in the 1860s, the Rancho experienced bankruptcy. The land began to be leased to Americans, and the Rancho was eventually divided and sold.

The Teague family were the first farmers to settle the San Dimas area. The family, including Mr. and Mrs.

C.P. Teague, their four sons (David C., Harvey T., Jasper N., and Robert M.) and four daughters, were originally from Iowa. They left Iowa and traveled via wagon trail to Sacramento in 1865. In 1878, the Teagues traveled to the San Gabriel Valley. By the time the Teague family relocated to Mud Springs, the Clancy family had moved to Los Angeles. David and Jasper Teague became part owners in the San Jose tract and approximately 500 acres near Mount City (Azusa). The Teague brothers farmed small grain on this land, approximately 3,000 acres, for many years. The family also raised a large number of sheep that grazed the area.

The development of water resources in the San Gabriel Valley led to the Teague family switching from grain to citrus. D.C. Teague planted ten acres of citrus on Cienega avenue, east of San Dimas Avenue. He raised his children on the property (Walter, Russell, Elmer, Hattie, and Edith). Elmer Teague was the first American born in what is now San Dimas. D. C. Teague had a prominent part in the organization of the San Dimas Orange Growers Association, acting as president and director until his retirement in 1910.

Robert M. Teague leased land from his father and started the Teague Citrus Tree Nursery. The nursery employed hundreds, including Japanese and Chinese immigrants, and became famous as the largest citrus nursery in the world. The Teague Nursery stretched along Bonita Avenue and was a dominant economic force in the City of San Dimas.

The Santa Fe Railroad was completed in 1887 with a new line from Los Angeles to San Bernardino. The line brought a population boom to all of the East San Gabriel Valley. The San Jose Ranch Company was officially formed as a small township in 1887 by the San Jose Ranch Company who changed the name of the town from Mud Springs to San Dimas. The San Jose Ranch Company was formed by Moses Wicks and four partners. They laid out townsites after the company acquired most of the land that would later become San Dimas. Wicks sold town lots and agricultural acreage for fruit production. In 1889, the Santa Fe Railroad established a station at San Dimas, which included a large freight shed for the storage of fruit shipments.

The Southern Pacific railroad established a line into San Dimas in 1895.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 16 The San Jose Ranch Company began manufacturing cement pipes in 1887 for use in irrigation for the citrus farms. The construction yard was located south of the Santa Fe tracks on Commercial Street. The site employed approximately 55 workers, mostly immigrant settlers from China. The company also operated a brick yard east of Amelia Avenue on Cienega Avenue. In addition to the lumber brought to the area via the rail lines, the brick and lumber yards allowed the area to grow into a thriving townsite.

After completion of the rail lines, and with the Teague Nursery growing thousands of citrus trees, San Dimas became a major citrus farming community. San Dimas became the “Queen of the citrus belt” in Southern California. Citrus growing in the area was at its peak in the early 1900s.

Into the 1900s, San Dimas prospered with a post office, bank, lumber yard, hardware store, drug store, telephone building, newspaper and many other businesses that served the growing population. In 1911, the San Dimas Rock Company opened. The plant was owned by Los Angeles County and supplied crushed rocks to the Los Angeles Highway Commission for the construction of roads in the county. The plant was an important employer in the area, supplying about a third of the rocks used in the Highway Commission’s $3,000,000 construction efforts. The town continued to grow, and subsequently opened a sheriff’s office and automobile garage in the 1920s.

As happened in much of the Pomona Valley, San Dimas departed from the citrus industry shortly after World War II. The city shifted from agriculture to industrial, with factories in the area providing better employment opportunities. This shift brought an influx of workers to the region, as well as rising real estate values and many new housing projects. In 1960, San Dimas was incorporated as a city. Since then, the city has experienced rapid growth. It transformed from a primarily rural area to a mix or residential, commercial, and industrial.2
Agricultural History of San Dimas
Citrus has been the staple crop of the San Dimas area since its early days. The first orange trees were planted in San Dimas by Saturnino Carrion in 1863. The Teague family were some of the original farmers in the San Dimas area, settling in the Mud Springs area in 1878. They originally farmed approximately 3,000 acres with grain and grazing sheep. After the development of water resources in the area, the family switched to citrus production. Robert M. Teague leased land from his father and started the Teague Citrus Tree Nursery. He originally planted 10,000 trees (orange, lemon, and grapefruit) in 1889. In 1896, he planted EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 17 an additional 20,000 and 40,000 more trees in 1897. By 1901, the Teague Nursery had reached 250,000 trees.

The business peaked around 1910-1912 and had sales up to $100,000 a year. The nursery employed hundreds, including Japanese and Chinese immigrants, and became famous as the largest citrus nursery in the world. The Teague Nursery stretched along Bonita Avenue and was a strong economic force in the City of San Dimas.

Other orchardists in the early days of San Dimas were William Bowring, Dave C. Teague, W.H. Stowell, H.E.

Stowell, W.T. Michael, William Ferry, T.E. Gore, C.P. Teague, James A. Johnstone, M.L. Torrey, Henry Rees, and Mary Taylor. In the early days, water was hauled from Mud Springs to the orchards, until ditches and pipes were built to supply water to the trees.

The first oranges were shipped from San Dimas in 1892. They were grown by D.C. Teague and packed at the Santa Fe station. The San Dimas growers soon organized in order to market and sell their fruit, first joining a cooperative based in Claremont before starting their own branch in San Dimas. In 1900 the San Dimas Citrus Union was incorporated, with the name changing to the San Dimas Orange Growers Association in 1907.

The organization built a packing house on the west side of San Dimas Avenue at the Santa Fe tracks, where both lemons and oranges were packed. The first board of directors included D.C. Teague, L.C. Meredith, J.B.

Rutherford, W.A. Johnstone, and C.B. Sumner, with C.D. Nelson as the first manager. After the first packing house was destroyed in a fire in 1910, the Orange Growers Association purchased a new site on West Bonita Avenue. The new site was closer to both the Santa Fe and Pacific Electric rail lines, with a direct connection to the Southern Pacific Railroad.

In 1900, the Lemon Association was formed, separating from the Orange Growers Association, and lemons began to be shipped from San Dimas. Construction of a lemon packing house at the corner of Bonita and Cataract, along the Santa Fe tracks, began in 1908. At the time of construction, it was the largest lemon packing house in the world.

Oranges and lemons from San Dimas were in high demand, and the citrus industry was the primary employer in the area, with many employed at the packing houses. San Dimas experienced a long period of mild winters, and the orchards thrived. Advertisements referred to the area as “Frostless San Dimas,” and “the frostless belt.” However, a harsh winter in 1913 led to the loss of many trees; it took several years for the area to recover. San Dimas citrus continued to be in high demand, and in 1927, a box car of lemons sold in EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 18 Chicago for $24.15 per box, an all-time high. By 1929, the San Dimas Exchange citrus sales, since its organization, were over $28,900,000.

The citrus industry remained the primary employer in the area for many years. However, following World War II, the area began to change. San Dimas shifted from a largely agricultural region to an industrial one.

New factories in the area paid better and soon became the primary economic force in the region. This caused an influx of workers and rising land values. After World War II there were many new housing developments, and San Dimas saw the decline of the citrus industry. During the 1960s and 1970s, most of the citrus groves in the area were removed.3
Queen Anne Architectural Style
Named and promoted by a group of English architects led by Richard Norman Shaw, the Queen Anne style was the predominant style in the United States from the 1880s to ca. 1900. The progenitor of the style is the William Watts Sherman House, designed by Architect H.H. Richardson and constructed in 1874 in Newport, RI. Like its predecessor, the Italianate style, expanding American rail lines helped to popularize this style because they transported pre-made architectural materials throughout the country. Many Queen Anne houses were built with pre-made materials ordered from catalogues or obtained by local planning mills.

Queen Anne buildings are categorized into four principal sub-types based on decorative detailing: Spindle work, Half-Timbered, Patterned Masonry, and Free Classic. Stylistic features of the Queen Anne style include:
• Irregular massing with asymmetrical facade composition, • Steeply pitched roofs of irregular shape, usually with a dominant front-facing gable, • Partial, full-length, or wraparound front porch,
• Variety of wall textures to eliminate the appearance of smooth wall surfaces including patterned shingles and siding,
• Patterned shingle roofing,
• Tall, narrow windows, some with leaded glass,
• Angled bay windows, and
• Heavy ornamentation, such as scroll–sawn brackets, carved panels, incised ornament, spindle work, roof cresting, finials, and decorative trim.

Approximately 50 % of Queen Anne residences fall under the Spindle Work subtype. This subtype features delicately turned porch supports and spindle work ornamentation made possible by machine lathes. These EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 19 features commonly occur in porch balustrades or as a frieze suspended from the porch ceilings. Spindle work details are also used in gables and under the wall overhangs left by cutaway bay windows. This subtype also features lacy, decorative spandrels and knob-like beads. These details are sometimes referred to gingerbread ornamentation.

About 35 % of Queen Anne houses fall under the Free Classic subtype. This subtype utilizes classical columns as porch supports. The columns are either full height of the porch or raised on a pedestal to the level of the porch railing. The porch-supports are commonly grouped in twos or threes. Classical details such as Palladian windows, cornice-line dentils, swags and garlands, are common in this subtype. This subtype is a later version of the Queen Anne, becoming common after 1890.

Roughly 5 % of Queen Anne homes fall under the Half-Timbered subtype. These homes have decorative half-timbering in gables or upper-story walls, and the porch supports are usually heavy turned posts with solid spandrels. Groupings of three or more windows are a common feature.

The Patterned Masonry subtype makes up about the remaining subtypes. This type features masonry walls with patterned brickwork or stonework, and relatively little wooden detailing. Gable dormers and decorative stone or terracotta panels are frequent features. This subtype was usually designed with a wide range of variation, and typically built in large cities, specifically New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. The style was popularized by a group of 19th-century English architects, most notably Richard Norman Shaw. These architects borrowed heavily from the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras of architecture.

The half-timbered and patterned masonry American subtype is most closely related to the work done by Shaw and his colleagues in England. The spindle work and free classic subtypes were developed in the United States. The Watts Sherman House in Newport is the first American example of the style. The earliest American examples of the style more closely resembled Shaw’s half-timber design. However, during the 1880s the American spindle work subtype gained favor. The style was featured in several architecture books in the 1880s and was popularized through pattern books and mail-order house plans. Hudson Holly’s 1878 Modern Dwellings in Town and Country was one of the first pattern books to feature the Queen Anne style; this and other pattern books allowed people to choose and build their own homes. The expanded railroad network made pre-cut architectural details conveniently available throughout much of the country, and people were able to build their own Queen Anne style homes without the input of architects.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 20 In the 1890s, following Chicago’s Columbian Exposition which featured classical style buildings, the free classic subtype gained popularity. This subtype was similar to the asymmetrical Colonial Revival and symmetrical Neoclassical styles that would overtake the Queen Anne’s popularity in the 1910s.

Ranch Architectural Style
The Ranch style of architecture originated in the mid-1930s in southern California. Its simple form made it relatively cheap to construct, and it was one of the styles permitted to be built under FHA financing guidelines. Into the 1950s, Ranch style homes represented sheltered privacy and a sense of security from the happenings of the Cold War, when Civil Defense needs stressed strength of the family and home as strength of the country. Throughout the United States, the Ranch style dominated residential tracts developed in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

After World War II, the style began to gain popularity. It was the most popular style of architecture in the 1950s and 1960s. The style was often found in large, mass constructed subdivisions. Ranch house suburbs were common across the country, especially in areas that saw a housing boom post-war. The style was especially popular in the southern, Sunbelt region, where relatively cheap land prices allowed for the sprawling style to be built. The increased use of automobiles after World War II facilitated the widespread construction of ranch style houses. Mass constructed ranch style suburbs were constructed on large swaths of undeveloped land – away from the cities. Improvements in transportation made it possible for people to travel more easily from the city to their homes in the suburbs.

The style was loosely based on early Spanish Colonial ranch houses in the American Southwest. The ranch style that came about in the mid-century was advertised as part of a casual family-oriented lifestyle for postwar families. It was more accessible to most Americans than other modern styles seen at the time. The style met the demand for housing that reflected the latest architectural aesthetic, stylistic details, and materials, including interior courtyards, aluminum framed windows, sliding glass doors, flat roofs, and masonry screen walls, while remaining affordable. The Ranch style home was typically built with a broad, one-story shape, built low to the ground, with a low-pitched roof. The front entry is typically off-center and sheltered under the main roof of the house. The garage is typically attached, elongating the building’s form.

They typically have a large picture window and an asymmetrical façade.4 Stylistic features of Ranch style include:
• Broad, one-story horizontal massing,
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 21 • Built low to the ground,
• Asymmetrical facade,
• Off-center front door,
• Low-pitched roof without dormers,
• Moderate to wide roof overhang,
• Large picture windows,
• Multiple window shapes and sizes,
• Integrated “slants”,
• Different wall-cladding materials,
• Garage attached to main facade, and
• One of four general subtypes that are based on roof form:
o Hipped roof,
o Cross-hipped roof,
o Side-gable roof, or
o Cross-gable roof.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 22 IV. PROPERTY HISTORY
The 901 W. Covina Blvd property is located in the City of San Dimas in Los Angeles County, set on the north side of West Covina Blvd and south of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The property, like much of the surrounding area, was originally developed as farmland, specifically for citrus cultivation. It appears that citrus cultivation continued at the property until the mid-1950s. The property features five buildings: a Queen Anne style residence dating to 1901, a stone barn dating to before 1932, a ranch style residence, and two-story garage. The ranch style residence and the garage both date to 1964.

Ownership and Occupancy History
Property ownership and occupancy was established through historical research, previous resource evaluations, and City of San Dimas permit records. Based on historic newspaper records, it was determined that development of the land dates to at least 1901. The property was originally part of a larger ranch property that spanned further west and totaled 20-acres. In 1901, the property was owned by Richard B. and Julia Wheelan. Wheelan was recorded as building a home at the time.5 The architect of the residence could not be identified through permits or historic research. The Queen Anne style was featured in several home plan books that allowed owners and carpenters to build their homes without employing an architect.

Wheelan may have built the Queen Anne style residence on the property from purchased plans or via the services of a carpenter. By 1902, the property totaled 20-acres and included 10-acres planted with navel orange, Valencia orange, and lemon tree varietals.
6 Richard “Dick” Wheelan was born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1858. He married Julia Fender in 1881 and raised two daughters, Hazel Courtney and Hattie Seney. The Wheelans moved to California in 1885. They established a home in Pomona and Mr. Wheelan worked for the Pomona Land and Water Company for several years. They then lived in Los Angeles for six years where Mr. Wheelan worked for the Los Angeles Electric Railway as a motorman and a conductor.7In 1898, the Wheelans moved to San Dimas to the present-day 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property.8 The 1900 federal census identifies the Wheelans as residents of the San Jose Township (present-day San Dimas), both of Irish descent, with Mr. Wheelan working as a rancher and the family occupying their owned / mortgaged property. In 1900, their two daughters were 10 ½ and 6 years old, with a third minor, Willis Shinn, listed as hired help, likely a ranch hand.9 A January 1, 1901 Los Angeles Daily Times article reference that Mr. Wheelan was building a residence, which is assumed to be the Queen Anne style home.10 That same year, he additionally served as a director of the San Dimas Irrigation Company.11 In 1902, the Wheelans sold their San Dimas acreage and EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 23 purchased a tobacco and newspaper store in Pomona. In 1911, they sold the store and purchased the J.A.

Vaughn ranch in Chino. Richard Wheelan passed away in the spring of 1912. Julia Wheelan died in 1920.12 Fred B. Gaul purchased Wheelan’s 20-acres for $14,000 in 1902. Mr. Gaul was born in 1866 in New York. He was married to Mary E. Gaul. In 1892, the Gauls lived in Lordsburg, a boomtown that later became part of La Verne, where he worked as a rancher.13 Fred Gaul first arrived in San Dimas in 1897. He worked as an orange grower at the time of purchase. In 1910, he was living at the 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property and worked as a rancher. Gaul subdivided the old Wheelan holding in 1920, with 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard comprising the eastern portion and 959 W. Covina Blvd comprising the western part. Gaul remained owner of the 959 W. Covina Boulevard property, building a new house on the property in 1920. He lived at that property until his death in 1947.14
The 901 W. Covina Boulevard property was sold to Fred H. Scoon in 1920. Scoon was born in Watseka, Illinois in 1872. He came to San Dimas in 1915. Scoon and his wife Eva had one daughter, Mary Scoon. Scoon owned the subject property until 1925 when he sold it to his son-in-law, Carlton W. Duvall. Scoon passed away in 1929. Eva Scoon passed away in 1963. 15
Carlton W. Duvall was originally from Los Angeles. He married Mary Scoon in 1925. At that time, he purchased the subject property from his father-in-law, Fred Scoon. Carlton and Mary lived at the subject property for several years after their wedding. In 1932, they built and moved into a six-room Spanish style home on W. 6th Street in San Dimas. Duvall had been employed as an orange grower and commercial sprayer for several years. For 15 years he was employed as a tank truck driver for the Union Oil Company, and for 13.5 years as a nurseryman at the Claremont Nursery until his retirement in 1966.16 In 1936, Verne and Marguerite (Margaret) Friedley, and their son Charles lived at the property.17 Verne Friedley was born in 1903 in Kansas. Margueriete Friedley was born in 1907 in Kansas. The couple was married in 1929. By 1930, the family was living in Los Angeles with Verne’s parents, Charles and Jennie Friedley.18 Their son, Charles E. Friedley was born in 1931.19 By 1936, the couple was living at the subject property. In 1940, the Friedley family moved to the Honeyman Ranch on S. Valley Center Avenue. At that time, Mr. and Mrs. Harry Chaney rented and occupied the subject property.20 The Friedley family moved back to the subject property in 1941.21 In 1942, Verne Friedley listed his occupation as an on-contract truck driver and citrus rancher.22 In 1945, the property was being used as a boarding house owned by Margaret Friedly.23 In 1947, Verne Friedley sold the subject property.24 By 1950, Verne and Charles E. were living with EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 24 his parents in Pomona. Verne and Margueriete had divorced by 1950, and Verne was working as a truck driver.25
Mr. and Mrs. Winthrop Johnson purchased the property from Verne Friedley in 1947. Johnson had served in the US military aboard the navy escort carrier USS Rogue, which received the Presidential Unit Citation for its anti-submarine work in the north Atlantic. He later served aboard the USS Point Cruz as officer in charge of combat information. He graduated from Oregon State University and began his career as a real estate salesman in San Diego, and later as a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. He graduated from the University of Southern California law school and was admitted to the bar in 1938. He worked for three years as a member of the firm Holland, Snidow and Johnson in Los Angeles. He then joined the public utilities division of the Securities and Exchange commission in Washington D.C.. Immediately prior to moving to San Dimas, he had been employed at a law practice in Glendale, California. In 1947, after moving to the subject property, Johnson joined the firm of Pence, Reed and Johnson in Covina.26 Johnson was living at the property in 1948.27 Johnson had been president of the Pomona Valley Bar Association and the Citrus Bar Association and was a trustee of the Los Angeles Bar Association. In 1959, Johnson was appointed to the judgeship of the Citrus Judicial District in West Covina.28 The couple had three children, Elizabeth, Daniel, and Steve Wald. They lived at the property until at least 1961; they had moved to West Covina by 1962. 29 In 1959, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Rosenthal, and their children, Mark, Steve, Larry and Harvey, were living at the subject property. The family was previously living in Glendora.30 In 1964, Pilar Elisalde was living at the subject property. He was born in 1938.31 Elisalde was originally from Mexico. After being involved in a fatal car crash in 1964, he was deported from the United States.32 The residence was owned by John J. and Mary Maxine (Hagen) Renaker from 1963 to 1976. Maxine was born in 1913 in North Dakota. John was born in 1915. John and Maxine were married in 1947. The couple founded the Hagen-Renaker Pottery company, based in Monrovia, CA in 1945. In the early 1960s, the company moved their operation to San Dimas, located at 914 W Cienega Ave, across the railroad tracks from the subject property. The company produced miniature animal families and wildlife figurines. The company collaborated with other designers, including Helen Perrin Farnlund, Maureen Love Calvert, and Nell Bortells.

The product was known worldwide. The couple had four children: Jim, David, Susan (Nikas), and Mary. Their daughter Mary Renaker married Eric Q. Brazel in 1974 and continued to live at the subject property.33 Mary Renaker was involved in the political scene; in 1976, she hosted former U.S. Senator Eugene E. McCarthy as he campaigned for U.S. presidential election.34 Maxine Renaker had a second career later in life, graduating EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 25 from California State University – Los Angeles in 1965, and went on to teach literature at Bonita High School in La Verne. John and Maxine retired from the ceramics business in 1996, and their daughter Susan Nikas took over. Maxine Hagen Renaker passed away in 2003. John Renaker passed away in 2014. The subject property remained in the Hagen-Renaker family until present day, conveying to their daughter Susan Nikas and then to Hagen Renaker Inc.35
Ownership and occupancy are summarized in Table 2 and Appendix C.

Table 2. 901 W. Covina Boulevard Ownership and Occupancy History Table Date Owner Source
1901-1902 Richard B. and Julia Wheelan The Los Angeles Times, Jan 01, 1901 1902-1920 Fred B. Gaul The Pomona Progress, Feb 07, 1902, Page 4 1920-1925 Fred H. Scoon The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Feb 23, 1925 1925-1932 Carlton W. Duvall The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Feb 23, 1925 1940 Mr. and Mrs. Harry Chaney The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Aug 22, 1940 1936-1947 Verne and Margarite (Margaret) Friedley The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Nov 03, 1936 1959 Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Rosenthal Progress-Bulletin, Aug 19, 1959 1947-1962 Winthrop and Elizabeth Johnson Permits
Progress-Bulletin, Thu, Jan 17, 1963 ·Page 21
1964 Pilar Elisalde Progress-Bulletin, Jan 04, 1964
1963-2024 John and Mary Hagen-Renaker; Susan Nikas;
Hagen Renaker Inc.

Permits
Parcel Quest Assessor Parcels
Construction History
Construction history is based on the City of San Dimas permit records, historic and current aerial photography, and newspaper records. The property was originally part of a larger 20-acre ranch developed by at least 1901. Newspaper records indicate that Robert Wheelan was building a residence at the property in 1901. This residence is addressed as 901 W. Covina Boulevard. By 1902, the property totaled 20-acres, with 10-acres dedicated to citrus trees. In 1905, newspaper records report that owner Fred Gaul added a cobblestone terrace around the 901 W. Covina Boulevard residence. The Los Angeles County Assessor dates the property to 1908; however, newspaper records indicate the property had been developed prior to this.

The home’s Queen Anne style is consistent with the ca. 1901 year-built date. The Queen Anne style residence first appears on topographic maps in 1927.

The property is first seen on aerial images from 1932. At this time, the property included the Queen Anne style residence, the small stone barn located north of the residence, and a second barn located east of the stone barn. Between 1934 and 1946, an addition with corrugated metal siding and roofing was constructed at the stone barn’s south elevation. This addition can first be seen on aerial images from 1946. Post 1932, a EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 26 carport was attached to the east elevation of the Queen Anne residence. The carport is not visible on aerial images until 2007, however this may be due to the low quality of the images.

In January 1946, property owner Verne Friedley obtained a plumbing permit for a refrigerator (Permit No. 11402). In 1946, owner Elizabeth D. Johnson obtained a permit to remove a partition and to add a fireplace at the property. The contractor for the work was Roger Curtis (Permit No. 38166). The same year, Johnson obtained a permit for electrical work (Permit No. 1010471). In 1947, property owner Winthrop Johnson obtained a permit for termite treatment and repairs (Permit No. 39386). In 1949, Johnson obtained a permit for electrical work (Permit No. 63098). In 1952, Johnson obtained a permit for plumbing work (Permit No. D22392-P).

A large addition, date unknown, occurred at the northwest corner of the Queen Anne residence. It appears this addition was constructed between 1934 and 1948, however, it is difficult to determine based on the low quality of the aerial images. Based on the asymmetrical roofline, the flat roof with open eaves and square columns, and the prevalence of jalousie windows at this section of the residence, it appears that this portion is non-original, however it may have originally been a sunroom or porch that was later enclosed. The sunroom at the east elevation is also likely an addition. This is evidenced by the brick foundation and decorative brackets at the roofline that are not seen at other parts of the house, and the flat roof that intersects the gable. Other undated alterations to the Queen Anne home include the replacement of windows. At each elevation, many of the windows have been replaced with jalousie units. Although patented at the start of the 20th Century, jalousie windows became popular in the United States in the postWorld War II era and were likely installed at the home during this period. At the front (south) elevation four of the six window openings have been replaced with jalousie windows. At the west elevation, thirteen of the sixteen window openings have been replaced with jalousie windows. At the north elevation, all seven windows are jalousie. At the east elevation, one window has been replaced with jalousie windows. 36 Between 1953 and 1964, the barn east of the stone barn was removed and the citrus trees were removed from the property eliminating its historic agricultural function and setting. In 1993, property owner Susan Nikas obtained a permit for roof repairs (Permit No. 13650). The permitted work involved repairing and replacing the roofing at the Queen Anne style residence with composition shingles.

In 1963, John Renaker obtained a permit for sewer disposal work. In 1964, John Renaker/Hagan Renaker Inc. obtained a permit for the construction of a new residence with a detached carport. Addressed as 903 W.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 27 Covina Boulevard, this single-story single-family residence was constructed in the Ranch style at the northeast corner of the parcel. The detached carport was later altered to include a second story. The two 1963 buildings first appear on topographic maps from 1967.

A majority of the windows at the Ranch style residence have been replaced with vinyl units within the original openings. It appears that there was an addition added to the west elevation of the Ranch style residence. The west portion of the home has a flat roof and the exterior wood siding is wider than seen on the rest of the house. Beyond the enlargement of the permitted carport through a second floor, many of the windows at the garage building have been boarded shut, the south elevation was refaced, with a sliding door installed at an unknown date.

A list of construction permits is available In Table 3 below. Historic views of the property are included in the following pages and within Appendix D.

Table 3. Construction Permits for 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard.

Date Owner/Contractor Permitted Work Address on Permit
1/20/1946 Owner: Verne M. Friedley
Contractor: Monte M. Temple
Plumbing work for
refrigerator (Permit No.
11402)
901 Covina Blvd
10/15/1946 Owner: Elizabeth D. Johnson
Contractor: Roger Curtis
Remove partition and add
fireplace (Permit No.
38166)
901 Covina Blvd
10/30/1946 Owner: Johnson
Haltiche (?) Electric Co.

Electrical Work (Permit No.
1010471)
901 Covina Blvd
2/27/1947 Owner: Winthrop Johnson
Contractor: Antimite Associates
Termite treatment and
repairs (Permit No. 39386)
901 W. Covina Blvd
1/4/1949 Owner: W. Johnson
Contractor: B.W. Witlock
Electrical Work (Permit No.
63098)
901 W. Covina Blvd
1/28/1952 Owner: W. Johnson
Contractor: Baker Septic Tank Co.

Plumbing Work (Permit No.

D-22392-P)
901 Covina Blvd
3/4/1963 Owner: John Renaker
Contractor: M.C. Nottingham of So Cal
Sewer-Sewage Disposal 901 Covina Blvd
7/2/1964 Owner: Renaker
Contractor: Paul H. Elmor
Electrical work 903 W. Covina Blvd
8/28/1964 Owner: Renaker
Contractor: Aladdin Plumbing
Plumbing work 903 W. Covina Blvd
8/10/1964 Owner: Hagen Renaker
Contractor: Jones & Jones
Sewer-Sewage Disposal 901 W. Covina Blvd
9/2/1964 Owner: John J. Renaker / Hagen
Renaker Inc.

Contractor: Hagen Renaker Inc.

Construction of home and
detached carport
903 W. Covina Blvd
6/19/1970 Owner: J.J. Renaker
Contractor: T. Sewer Co.

Sewer-Sewage Disposal 901 W. Covina Blvd
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 28 3/23/1972 Owner: John Renaker
Contractor: FF. Lindenau
Electrical Work 901 W. Covina Blvd
5/5/1993 Owner: Susan Nikas
Contractor: W.H. Byars Roofing
Company Inc.

Remove existing roofing
and replace any bad wood.

Install new 20-year
fiberglass composition
shingles (dark green flat).

Remove existing and
replace bad wood. Install
new white roofing (Permit
No. 13650)
901 W. Covina Blvd
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 29 Figure 3. 1934 Aerial Image of the subject property and surrounding area. Source: UC Santa Barbara Frame Finder EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 30 Figure 4. 1934 detail view. The image shows the Queen Anne style home, the stone portion of the barn, and a non-extant barn at the northeast corner.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 31 Figure 5. 1946 Aerial Image. Source: HistoricAerials.com EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 32 Figure 6. 1948 Aerial Image. Source: HistoricAerials.com EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 33 Figure 7. 1952 Aerial image of the subject property and surrounding area. Source: UCSB Frame Finder.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 34 Figure 8. 1965 Aerial Image. Source: HistoricAerials.com EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 35 Figure 9. 1994 aerial of the subject property. Source: Google Earth EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 36 Figure 10. 2003 aerial of the subject property. Source: Google Earth EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 37 Figure 11. 2013 aerial of the subject property. Source: Google Earth EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 38 Figure 12. 2023 Aerial Image. Source: Google Earth
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 39 V. ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW
The evaluated property consists of four historic-era buildings representing two distinct construction campaigns: a ca. 1901 two-story Queen Anne style home addressed as 901 W. Covina Boulevard with an ancillary barn built prior to 1932, and a ca. 1964 single-story Ranch style home addressed as 903 W. Covina Boulevard with a carport that was later converted to a two-story garage. The evaluated parcel is rectilinear, approximately 3.24-acres sited on the north side of W. Covina Boulevard immediately west of SR-57. The property features a long driveway from the street to the north end of the property where the buildings are clustered. There are low cobblestone terrace walls around planting beds at the property. The south end of the property was formerly in agricultural use but is currently vacant. The surrounding area is a mix of commercial, residential, educational, and industrial properties. 901 W. Covina Boulevard Dwelling
The Queen Anne style residence at 901 W. Covina Boulevard was constructed in ca. 1901. The building has a two-story, irregular form. The building is clad in white horizontal siding on the first floor, and white shingle siding at the second floor. The foundation is a mix of cobblestone and concrete. This mix of foundations might be indicative of a basement or cellar, as there is evidence of some type of vents at the west elevation, foundation level. The roof is a mix of gable, flat and hipped, with a mix of rooflines. The roof is clad in dark green composition shingles. The residence features a wood wrap-around porch that spans from the front (south) elevation to west elevation. Surrounding the building is a concrete sidewalk.

At the front (south) elevation, the residence features a centered front door. The front door has a wide surround, with a transom window above. There is a narrow concrete staircase leading to the front door. The wrap-around porch begins at the front door and extends around the southwest corner of the building. The porch has a wide overhang, with boxed eaves and a hipped roof. The porch is supported by round, classical columns. The southwest and southeast corners of the first floor are cutaway, with windows at the diagonal walls. There are four windows at the south elevation: two jalousie and two original. The original windows have a fixed transom windows above with a decorative pane of glass. This decorative glass features a design of overlapping ovals. There is a front gable at the second floor, set directly above the front door. There are two jalousie windows set within the gable. The sunroom and car port additions at the east elevation are visible from this elevation.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 40 At the west elevation, there are two side entrance doors, with two sets of small concrete steps leading to each. The wrap-around porch continues around the building to this elevation. The classical columns and hipped roof above the porch extend to this elevation. There is one door with a transom window above at the porch. This elevation is altered with an addition on over 50% of the facade. There is a one-story addition at the northwest corner of the building; this may have originally been a sunroom or enclosed porch. This addition has open eaves and a flat roof. There is a small, elevated landing and side door set within the west elevation of the addition. At the first floor at this elevation, there are three large and six medium sized windows. These nine are all jalousie windows. The second floor of the addition features an irregular gable roof line; the original second story features a twin gable with a set of four windows and the addition has a half gable to match one side of one of the twin gables. With the gables there are six jalousie windows, and one small multi-pane window.

The north elevation features one side entrance door. The roof is hipped, except for the flat roof above the northwest corner addition and a small gable. The addition seen at the west elevation continues to the north elevation. The alteration comprises more than 50% of the elevation. The roof has a moderate overhang with boxed eaves. The building has a cutaway corner at the northeast corner of the building with a window set at that diagonal wall. There are four large windows and one small window at the first floor; all are jalousie.

Three of these windows are in the addition and one is in the original portion of the house. There are two small jalousie windows set within the gable.

At the east elevation, there is a large sunroom. The sunroom is centered at the east elevation, with a brick foundation and a low-pitched shed roof. The sunroom is a later addition, though it was likely constructed early in the building’s history. The sunroom has screen doors at each end, and screen windows at each side.

The sunroom windows feature transom windows with a distinctive tri-partite fixed panes under an arch. The roof of the sunroom has a narrow overhang with decorative brackets. There is one large window outside the sunroom at this elevation. There is a brick exterior chimney that interrupts the roofline. There is a second interior chimney that is visible from this elevation at the second floor, there is a large gable. Within the gable, the window opening appears to have been replaced with screen doors. Extending from the sunroom is a pergola car port. Visible within the sunroom is a bay window with the oval decorative glass transom above and two entry doors flanking the window on either side.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 41 901 W. Covina Boulevard Barn
The barn is at the northwest corner of the property. The original portion of this structure is a small stone building with a gable roof. This portion of the building is constructed of uniform cast stone blocks. This original section has a gable roof with exposed beams. It has one side entrance door at the east elevation and a boarded window opening at the north elevation. There is a large, two-story addition to the barn at the south elevation. This addition is constructed of corrugated metal siding and has a gable roof clad in corrugated metal. This portion of the building has three large sliding door entrances at the east elevation, one large sliding door at the south elevation facing the railroad tracks, and two large sliding door openings at the west elevation. At the south elevation there is a large vertical loft door at the second floor, with hinged corrugated metal doors.
903 W. Covina Boulevard Dwelling
The ranch style residence is located at the northeast corner of the property. The one-story residence has a broad, rectangular form. It is clad in a vertical board siding, with a side gable and flat roof, clad in composition shingles. The gable roof has a deep overhang with open eaves. The flat roof has no overhang at the north and south elevations, and a deep overhang with open eaves at the west elevation. The building has a concrete foundation. The residence has very few architectural details. The west section of the residence appears to be an addition, based on the flat roof and wider wood paneling than seen of the rest of the residence.

The front (south) elevation as an asymmetrical form, with a simple front porch extending over the front door. The porch has a low brick and cement platform, a flat shed roof with open eaves, and is supported by square posts. At the front elevation there is one large three-part window, four large horizontal sliding windows, and one sash window. The windows all appear to be vinyl with narrow wood surrounds.

The west elevation features two large horizontal sliding windows, and one side entrance door. Each window is vinyl with a narrow wood surround. The north elevation is partially obscured due to vegetation. It features two rear entrance doors, one small sash window, and two large horizontal sliding windows, each vinyl with narrow surrounds. At this elevation there is an exterior brick chimney that intersects the roofline. There is a brick and concrete patio at this elevation. The east elevation was not accessible.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 42 903 W. Covina Boulevard Garage-Apartment
The carport-garage conversion is two-stories with vehicle storage and workspace on the ground floor with an upstairs apartment. The garage is clad in a mix of horizontal and vertical siding. The building has a mix of rooflines, both shed and gable. The roof is clad in composition shingles with a moderate overhang and open eaves. At the south elevation of the building, there is a large span of vertical wood siding, with a simple sliding wood door at the first floor. On the second floor, there are four tri-part windows. At the east elevation, there are three horizontal sliding windows, and one door opening. All but one of the windows and the door have been boarded shut. At the west elevation, there are four window openings. Three are horizontal sliding windows. One has been boarded shut. There is one double door, and a side entrance with transom windows above at this elevation. On the second floor, there is a single door that opens to the shed roof. The rear (north) elevation is largely obscured due to fencing and vegetation. It appears that there is one window on the first floor of this elevation, and three windows at the second.

Landscaping
The property features a long gravel driveway that leads from W. Covina Blvd at the south of the property to the northern section. The driveway splits, with one route leading to the Ranch house and the other leading to the Queen Anne residence and barn. At the fork in the driveway, there is a cobblestone retaining wall surrounding a small, landscaped area. This area features several mature trees and bushes. The cobblestone retaining wall is also seen surrounding the Queen Anne residence. This low wall extends along the southern end of the house, separating the house’s lawn from the open agricultural land at the southern half of the property. There are several mature trees located throughout the property.

Current views of the property are included in the following pages and within Appendix D.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 43 View of the front (south) elevation of the Queen Anne residence. This facade is intact excepting jalousie units in the gable and the brick chimney, added later.

View of the west elevation of the Queen Anne residence, altered via enclosure or an addition at the porch (at left) and new roof massing extending out from the central gables. Window changes are also observed.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 44 View of the north elevation of the Queen Anne residence. The rear half of the elevation is altered via a porch enclosure and additional massing (at right).

View of the east elevation of the Queen Anne residence. The single-story porch appears to be an addition, later extended via the carport structure.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 45 East elevation of the barn including the original massing with stone walls and the larger corrugated panel addition.

View of the front (south) elevation of the ranch style residence with a flat roof addition at left.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 46 View of the front (south) elevation of the garage building with upstairs apartment.

Vacant and untended orchard land at the south end of the property.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 47 VI. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION &

REGULATORY CONCLUSIONS
In the 1991 Citywide survey, the Queen Anne house and stone barn, were surveyed as potentially significant under the context of economic development in San Dimas from 1887-1940. In the HRI forms, the house is described as “important as one of the oldest remaining ranches in San Dimas” and the barn is described as “this barn and attached cast stone structure are significant because of their rarity.” This HRAR is prepared to more intensively research and assess the property’s significance and under the criteria of the CRHR. Analysis under the CRHR is included below. DPR forms prepared for the property, with a CRHR status code assigned, are included in Appendix E.

CRHR Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

The 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property was initially developed in circa 1901 as part of a larger 20-acre ranch. During this time, San Dimas was largely agricultural, with many residents involved in the citrus industry. There were several large citrus ranches operating in the vicinity, and several packing houses located in the area. The climate and proximity to several rail lines made San Dimas an ideal location to grow, package, and ship citrus across the country. While the subject property was identified as having grown citrus, there is no indication that the property was a significant producer or that it otherwise made a significant contribution to the growth of the area. While several of the owners were identified as being involved in the citrus industry, there is no indication that the subject property had a significant citrus production. Prior to the subdivision of the property in the 1920s, the property was identified as having 10- acres of citrus trees. Compared to other citrus ranches in the area that had upwards of several hundred acres of trees, the output from the subject property was likely small. After the property was subdivided in the 1920s, the property continued to have citrus trees, however, the output would have been even smaller.

While the property was originally constructed during the height of the citrus industry in San Dimas, there is no indication that it had a significant impact on the industry or San Dimas in general. The Queen Anne residence on the property is essentially a relic and byproduct of the prosperity of the early citrus industry in San Dimas. It was constructed in ca. 1901 by Robert Wheelan who came to San Dimas in 1887 at the start of the citrus industry. Wheelan became prosperous enough to build this large and prestigious residence as evidence of his success. He soon retired and became a merchant, although he continued to be active in the citrus industry as did subsequent owners. As such, the property is representative of the importance and EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 48 prosperity of the citrus industry in San Dimas. While representative, there is no indication that the property made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of agricultural or economic development history in San Dimas. For this reason, the property is not considered eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

Beyond Urbana’s conclusion that the property is not significant under CRHR 1, using the 1991 survey conclusion that the property is potentially significant under the theme of economic development ca. 1887-1940, the property does not retain adequate integrity to convey significance. Refer to the integrity discussion in the following pages.

CRHR Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

The 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property has had several owners throughout its history. Early owner Robert Wheelan built the Queen Anne style home and was an early participant in the San Dimas citrus boom. Wheelan’s association with the property was very brief, from ca. 1898 to 1902, and is limited to the construction of the home and likely the ancillary barn. The property was then owned and occupied by several other individuals that worked as citrus producers including Fred Gaul from ca. 1902 through 1920- 1921, but none of the subsequent owners or occupants rise to significance under CRHR Criterion 2. Mr. Gaul subdivided the acreage as the citrus boom slowly faded and built his new home next door in 1921. He owned and occupied the parcel to the east until his death in 1947.

The 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property is most closely associated with the Hagen-Renaker family. The Hagen-Renaker family owned the property for thirty years from 1963 to 1993. The property was owned by John and Maxine Renaker until the 1990s when ownership passed to their daughter, Susan Nikas, and then to the Hagen-Renaker Inc. The family is most closely associated with their business, Hagen Renaker Ceramics. The company produced a wide variety of small animal ceramics, operating from 1945 to 2021.

While family is associated with the subject property, the 914 W. Cienega Avenue property where the Hagen Renaker factory was located, has a stronger association. The Hagen Renaker company was a family business until their daughter Susan Nikas retired in 2021, and the San Dimas factory closed. Further, while the HagenRenaker company saw success and a lengthy operation, the company and the family does not appear to rise to the necessary level of significance. As such, the property is not considered eligible under CRHR/Local Register Criterion 2.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 49 CRHR Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.

The 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property consists of four historic-era buildings: one Queen Anne style residence, one stone barn with corrugated metal addition, one ranch style residence, and one modified garage building. The barn, ranch, and garage buildings do not strongly represent their respective architecture styles or building types. They are common building types, with minimal architectural details that exhibit varying degree of alterations. Ranch style homes were extremely common in the post-World War II era and the evaluated example at 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard is not considered a meritorious example. The barn has been modified during the historic-era, and though the original portion dates to the early period of the property’s history, it does not represent a unique building type. The building has a simple form, and the large addition has overshadowed the original structure. The garage building has been modified with a living space, and the carport opening entirely altered; it no longer represents its property type. Further, it has few architectural details. The builder and architect of the barn could not be identified.

The contractor for the ca. 1964 ranch style home and garage building was listed as property owner John Renaker’s company, Hagen Renaker Inc. The company was primarily known for designing and making small ceramic figurines. The company had a factory located immediately north of the subject property, across from the railroad tracks. The company is not associated with construction work, and this is the only building identified as being built by them. The buildings have a simple design and are not the work of a master architect or builder. As such, these three buildings are not significant under Criterion 3.

The Queen Anne style residence is considered a unique and somewhat rare local example of the style. The Queen Anne style was popular in the United States from the 1880s to the 1910s. The style took inspiration from earlier European styles but utilized new technology that allowed for pre-made architectural details.

This style was frequently featured in plan books that allowed the public to build their own Queen Anne style homes. Dating to circa 1901, the subject residence exhibits many of the character defining features of the style. The home most closely resembles the free classic subtype of the architectural style. The residence features a large a symmetrical porch, extending along two walls of the residence, classic style porch columns, an asymmetrical façade, the use of textured shingles to avoid a smooth walled appearance, a dominant front facing gable, secondary gable dormers, shallow rectangular windows over the main window, and cutaway corner walls. The builder or architect of the Queen Anne residence could not be identified; however, based on the remaining architectural details, the subject property is a unique example of a Queen Anne style residence dating to the early days of San Dimas that represents high quality materials and EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 50 workmanship. As such, it is considered significant under Criterion 3, however, the home does not retain adequate integrity to convey significance.

CRHR Criterion 4: Has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Research and analysis of the subject property has not yielded information important in prehistory or history.

Further study of the property is not likely to yield important information. The property is not eligible under Criterion 4.

Integrity
Integrity is the ability of a resource to convey its significance. Only after the historic significance of a resource is fully established can the issue of integrity be addressed. The 901 W. Covina Blvd property is asserted significant under CRHR 3, relating specifically to the Queen Anne style residence. Analysis under the seven aspects of integrity is included below.

Location: The subject property retains integrity of location. It has not been moved from its original location on W. Covina Blvd.

Design: The subject property does not maintain integrity of design. The Queen Anne style residence, while maintaining many character defining features of the style, has been significantly altered. Most significantly is the addition at the northwest corner of the building. This addition effectively alters the north and west elevations of the building. The sunroom at the east elevation also appears to be a later addition, based on the architectural details that do not match the rest of the building. These additions effect three of the four elevations and have altered the original design of the house. The additions may be reversible; however, no historic photos showing the original facade appearance at the altered locations are known to exist.

Presumably, reversing some of the latter additions would involve some roofline changes / removal, rebuilding some exterior walls, and porch features. Other alterations may also be reversed, specifically installation of period appropriate wood windows within original openings and removal of the carport structure. However, since these additions are of the historic-era removing them would entail a decision on what period of restoration would be appropriate for a restoration if that was a goal for the property.

Setting: The subject property does not maintain integrity of setting. The Queen Anne residence was EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 51 constructed circa 1901. At this time, the citrus industry served as the economic base for San Dimas. The subject property and the surrounding area were composed entirely of agricultural uses. The subject property was originally part of a 20-acre ranch with 10-acres of citrus trees. While there is no evidence that the subject property was ever economically dependent on citrus production, its original setting is based on this agricultural property type. After being subdivided in the 1920s, the property retained rows of trees until the 1950s, although not a significant amount given the size of roughly 3-acres. Today the property has been divorced from this agricultural setting both within the parcel boundaries and surrounding the parcel at neighboring lots that were previously historically associated with the property. While the evaluated parcel maintains an open space at the southern end, it does not reflect an agricultural setting. There are only a handful of citrus trees on the property; not enough to represent the property’s agricultural history. The property does not maintain integrity of setting.

Materials: The subject property maintains reduced material integrity. There have been additions to the north, west, and east elevations of the Queen Anne style residence that have altered the original materials.

The roof was replaced with composition shingles. A majority of the windows at all elevations have been replaced. However, many of the material changes have been additive. The home still has some original materials such as some remaining original windows with rectangular transoms above original window openings that feature an oval shaped design. There are other original windows and doors. Other details of the foundation, porch, and gables are original.

Workmanship: The subject property does not maintain integrity of workmanship. While the Queen Anne residence maintains many of the original architectural details that demonstrate the original builder’s workmanship, the building has been significantly altered. There have been changes to every elevation and the building as it currently stands does not adequately demonstrate the original workmanship.

Feeling: The subject property does not maintain integrity of feeling. The Queen Anne style residence was constructed circa 1901. At the time, it was part of a much larger ranch style property with several acres of citrus groves and at least two barn structures. The home was a showcase farmhouse, set amongst a wider area that was also predominantly agricultural. Some early landscape features remain, such as the cobble borders around planting beds. In the 1920s, the property was subdivided, but the property maintained an agricultural feel. However, by the 1960s, the citrus groves had been removed and the ranch style residence was added to the property. The surrounding area began to develop and no longer was agricultural land.

Currently, there is no agricultural use on the subject property. The Queen Anne home no longer feels like a EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 52 farmhouse and does not maintain the feeling of an agricultural property. The original barn remains, as does its historic-era addition which conveys an agricultural feeling. However, the addition of the ranch style residence and garage detracts from the historic agricultural feeling of the property.

Association: The property is most closely associated with the agricultural history of San Dimas. The area was known for its citrus production. While the subject property was not identified as being a significant citrus producer, it maintained several acres of orange groves. While none of the property owners appear to have been economically dependent of citrus production from the property, the home is still associated with this agricultural era in San Dimas, when the primary industry in the area was citrus. The property and its Queen Anne showcase home is a reminder of what citrus prosperity accomplished for San Dimas. The property is a relic association of that era. However, there are now only a few citrus trees on the property, and it does not appear that the property is not being used for any type of agriculture. While the property maintains a barn structure, it has also been improved with a ranch style residence and large garage building.

The property does not maintain a strong association with the agricultural history of San Dimas.

Regulatory Conclusions
As part of this HRAR, the 901-903 W. Covina Boulevard property, with four historic-era buildings, is opined ineligible for designation or listing on the CRHR.

Most critical to a future discretionary process, the 1901 Queen Anne residence, at 901 W. Covina Boulevard, appears ineligible under CRHR Criterion 1 and 2 as it has not been directly associated with significant events or individuals in the economic development history of San Dimas. It is a byproduct of the early citrus period in the city, but no evidence was located to support a positive eligibility conclusion that the home and 3.24- acre parcel yielded significant crops or that its early owners maintained a significant role in the citrus industry. The 1901 Queen Anne residence, at 901 W. Covina Boulevard, appears locally significant under CRHR Criterion 3 as an example of the Queen Anne style; however, the building lacks the necessary integrity to make it eligible for the CRHR. It has experienced multiple alterations including several additions and porch enclosures, roofline changes, and some window changes. Accordingly, the property does not appear to meet the definition of a historical resource pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

Recommendations
Because the Queen Anne residence has been found significant but ineligible due to a lack of integrity, it is recommended that the current owner or future project applicants complete a voluntary Level II Historic EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 53 American Buildings Survey documentation package for the home to ensure that the documentation is available for future study.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 54 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BLM GLO. Bureau of Land Management Government Land Office Land Grant Records Search Tool. Website.

Accessed April 2023. https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx.

Ancestry. Ancestry Corporate. Website, (1997-2021). Accessed March 2024. https://www.ancestry.com/.

California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register and National Register: A Comparison. Technical Assistance Series 6. (1999). Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

The Los Angeles Times Newspaper files. Newspapers.com.

The Pomona Progress Bulletin Newspaper files. Newspapers.com.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, Alfred A. Knoff, 1984.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research. Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research.

Website, (1999). Accessed March 2024. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

National Register Bulletin 16A. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Services, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991.

Newspapers Publisher Extra. Newspapers. Ancestry. Website. (2021). Accessed March 2024. https://www.newspapers.com.

Office of Historic Preservation. “Instruction for Recording Historical Resources.” Sacramento: March 1995.

University of California Santa Barbara Library. Frame Finder. Website (n.d.). Accessed March 2024. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Earth Explorer. Website (n.d.) Accessed March 2024. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15, Revised 1991.

United States Geological Survey. U.S.G.S. Topo View. U.S. Department of the Interior. Website. (n.d.).

Accessed March 2024. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview
EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 55 Endnotes
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, “What is the California Register and What Does It Have to Do With CEQA?” http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21724. Accessed April 2020. 2 “History of San Dimas,” My San Dimas, https://sandimasca.gov/residents/about_us/history_of_san_dimas.php. Accessed August 2024; “San Dimas,” Pomona Valley Historical Collection, Cal Poly Pomona, https://libguides.library.cpp.edu/c.php?g=771946&p=7979576. Accessed August 2024; “History,” San Dimas Historical Society, https://sandimashistorical.org/history/. Accessed August 2024; Hoover, J. Howard. Profile of San Dimas. San Dimas, Calif.: [San Dimas Press], 1961.
3 Howard J. Hoover. Profile of San Dimas. San Dimas, Calif.: (San Dimas Press), 1961. 4Virginaia McAlester, et al. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, 2021.
5 The Los Angeles Times, Jan 01, 1901, Page 19; Triem, Judith, “903 West Covina Boulevard,” San Dimas Historic Resources Survey, 1991.
6 The Los Angeles Times, Feb 08, 1902, Page 17.
7 Frank Parkhurst Brackett. History of Pomona Valley, California, with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the valley who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present. Los Angeles, Calif.:
(Historic Record Co.) 1920.
8 The Pomona Progress, May 13, 1898, Page 3.
9 Year: 1900; Census Place: San Jose, Los Angeles, California; Roll: 92; Page: 15; Enumeration District: 0126. 10 The Los Angeles Daily Times, Jan 01, 1901, Page 19.
11 The Los Angeles Daily Times, Nov 16, 1901, Page 15.
12 The Pomona Daily Review, Mar 30, 1912, Page 4; The Bulletin, Feb 29, 1920, Page 2. 13 US Voter Registers, 1892, Ancesty.com.
14 The Pomona Progress, Feb 07, 1902, Page 4; US Voter Registrations, 1910, Ancestry.com, https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/70576793:61066, Accessed August 2024; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, March 1, 1947, pg 12; Triem, Judith, “903 West Covina Boulevard,” San Dimas Historic Resources Survey, 1991. 15 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Feb 23, 1925, pg 3; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, April 3, 1929, pg 2; Triem, Judith, “903 West Covina Boulevard,” San Dimas Historic Resources Survey, 1991; Progress-Bulletin, Jun 30, 1963, Page 2. 16 1991 Site Record; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, March 1, 1947, pg 12; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, April 3, 1929, pg 2; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Feb 23, 1925, pg 3; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, June 7, 1932, page 5; La Verne Leader, May 15, 1968.
17 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Nov 03, 1936, Page 5; Los Angeles County Directory, 1940. 18 1930 US Census Record, Genealogy Bank; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Dec 01, 1939, Page 6. 19 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Jun 10, 1936, Page 5; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Jul 22, 1946, Page 9; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, May 01, 1945, Page 9.
20 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Aug 22, 1940, Page 5.
21 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Jul 01, 1941, Page 5.
22 Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.
23 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Jun 10, 1936, Page 5; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Jul 22, 1946, Page 9 ; The Pomona Progress Bulletin, May 01, 1945, Page 9.
24 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Mar 29, 1947, Page 5.
25 1950 US Census Record, Ancestry.com.
26 Covina Argus, Fri, Mar 28, 1947, Page 1.
27 The Pomona Progress Bulletin, Mar 29, 1947, Page 5; Los Angeles County Directory, 1948. 28 Progress-Bulletin, Oct 12, 1959, Page 25.
29 Covina Argus, Mar 30, 1951, Page 6; Progress-Bulletin, Sep 28, 1960, Page 28; Progress-Bulletin, Mar 10, 1961, Page 9; Progress-Bulletin, Jan 17, 1963, Page 21.
30 Progress-Bulletin, Aug 19, 1959, Page 33.
31 Progress-Bulletin, Jan 04, 1964, Page 3.
32 Progress-Bulletin, Mar 25, 1964, Page 15.
33 Progress Bulletin, Jan 26, 1974, Page 14.
34 La Verne Leader, Feb 12, 1976, Page 1.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

Historical Resource Analysis Report
901-903 W. Covina Boulevard, San Dimas, CA 91773
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC | October 2024 | Page 56 35 “Maxine, Hagen Renaker”, Find A Grave Memorial, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/23915656/maxine_renaker.

Accessed August 2024; Triem, Judith, “903 West Covina Boulevard,” San Dimas Historic Resources Survey, 1991; ParcelQuest Assessor Parcel Data.
36 The Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1901; Covina Argus, November 11, 1905; City of San Dimas Permit Records, 1946-1993.

EIF Item #33 -- Historic Resource Analysis Report.pdf

1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Ave
San Dimas, CA 91773
Attn: City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 8
APN: 8385-006-027 AREA ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY
Exempt from recording fees per Govt Code6103

MASTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT

AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
This MASTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the day of , 2025 (“Effective Date”) by and between CITY OF SAN DIMAS, a municipal corporation (“City”) and RC HOMES, INC, a California corporation (“Developer”).

RECITALS
A. Developer owns and is developing that certain real property commonly known as 901 W. Covina Blvd in City of San Dimas, County of Los Angeles, California (APN 8385-006-027) legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Property”).

B. City has granted a density bonus (“Density Bonus”) pursuant to Chapter 18.22 (Density Bonus Provisions) of City’s Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65915 (collectively, the “Density Bonus Law”) and San Dimas City Councill Commission Resolution No. (“City Council Resolution”). The Density Bonus allows Developer to construct up to thirtyseven (37) single family residential dwelling units on the Property (“Project”).

C. In order to obtain the Density Bonus, Developer has agreed to restrict the sale and occupancy of seven (7) single family dwelling units as affordable units pursuant to the Density Bonus Law as provided in this Agreement. The layout of the Project and all the residential units are depicted and their locations identified on Exhibit B attached hereto (“Project Layout”).

D. This Agreement shall satisfy Developer’s obligation to enter into a written agreement with City as required by Section 18.22.040 of City’s Municipal Code and as required by General Condition of City Council Resolution. In consideration of Developer’s covenants hereunder, and on the condition subsequent that Developer performs its obligations hereunder, City hereby agrees that Developer has satisfied City’s requirements with the provision of the Affordable Units as described herein to qualify for the Density Bonus for the Property, pursuant to the City Council Resolution and the Density Bonus Law.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

2 ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:

1.1.1 Applicable Affordable Housing Cost shall mean the following for the applicable Restricted AH Units:
(a) Affordable Housing Cost for Low Income Household means a Total Housing Cost which does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of seventy percent (70%) of Area Median Income.
(b) Affordable Housing Cost for Moderate Income Household means a Total Housing Cost which does not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of one hundred ten percent (110%) of Area Median Income.

1.1.2 Applicable AH Household Income shall have the following meanings, as applicable for the Restricted AH Unit:
(a) Low Income Household means a Household whose Gross Income meets the standards defined in HSC Section 50079.5. The maximum household income shall be the amount published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as adjusted to reflect the actual size of the Household purchasing a particular AH Restricted Unit.
(b) Moderate Income Household means a Household whose Gross Income meets the standards defined in HSC Section 50093. The maximum household income shall be the amount published by HCD as adjusted to reflect the actual size of the Household purchasing a particular AH Restricted Unit.

1.1.3 Area Median Income means the Los Angeles County area median income, adjusted for household size, as established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and as published periodically by California Housing and Community Development (HCD) pursuant to Section 50093 et seq. of California Health and Safety Code and applicable regulations.

1.1.4 Benchmark Down Payment shall be set at 5% of the Purchase Price for Restricted AH Unit. This shall solely be used for the purpose of calculating the Purchase Price for Restricted AH Unit.

1.1.5 Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit means the “Affordability Covenants and Restrictions Affecting Real Property with Option to Purchase Secured by Deed of Trust” substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D to be adjusted to the Affordable AH Household Income for the applicable Restricted AH Unit and to be recorded against the Restricted AH Unit as provided in Article 2 which shall bind the Restricted AH Unit for fifty-five (55) years.

1.1.6 Covenant Deed of Trust shall mean a deed of trust in the form attached as Exhibit E to be executed by the applicable Eligible Purchaser which shall secure the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit for the applicable Restricted AH Unit being purchased to be recorded against the Restricted AH Unit concurrently with the Covenant Agreement as provided in Article 2.

3 1.1.7 Eligible Purchaser shall mean a person who is purchasing one of the Restricted AH Units who meets with all income and asset verification requirements in this Agreement for the applicable Restricted AH Unit and who is not an Ineligible Purchaser.

1.1.8 FMV of the Restricted AH Unit shall mean the fair market value of the Restricted AH Unit determined as provided in Section 2.7.1.

1.1.9 Gross Income means all income from whatever sources for all adult Household members, which is anticipated to be received during the 12-month period following the date of the determination of Gross Income. The applicable sources of income are defined in California Code of Regulations Title 25 Housing and Community Development Section 6914.

1.1.10 Household means all persons residing in a Restricted AH Unit.

1.1.11 HSC means California Health and Safety Code.

1.1.12 Ineligible Purchaser shall have the meaning defined in Section 2.5.

1.1.13 Market Rate Units means the Units within the Project which are not Restricted AH Units.

1.1.14 Purchase Price for Restricted AH Unit means the purchase price for the sale of the applicable Restricted AH Unit to an Eligible Purchaser which shall be calculated pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 and Section 2.1 of this Agreement. The Purchase Price for a Restricted AH Unit shall be equal to the sum of the Supportable Mortgage plus the Benchmark Down Payment.

1.1.15 Required Marketing Efforts means marketing efforts that Developer is required to make with respect to the Restricted AH Units (as set forth in Section 2.3(a), below).

1.1.16 Restricted AH Units shall mean the following Units which are restricted for sale to Eligible Purchasers for the applicable affordability level as follows:

Unit Count Site Plan Unit #* Income Level # Bedrooms
1 U3 Low 4
2 U5 Low 4
3 U10 Moderate 4
4 U13 Moderate 4
5 U16 Low 4
6 U20 Low 4
7 U22 Low 4
* As located on the Project Layout attached as Exhibit B

1.1.17 Supportable Mortgage means the first-position mortgage or loan amount that can be supported by an Eligible Purchase of a Restricted AH Unit based on the Affordable Housing Cost calculations. The mortgage calculation is based on the prevailing market interest rate for a 30-year fully amortizing mortgage with a fixed interest rate.

1.1.18 Total Housing Cost means the total monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter, and includes the mortgage payment (principal and interest, based on a fixed interest rate mortgage with a thirty (30) year term), and household-paid utilities,

4 homeowner association dues, real estate taxes, mortgage insurance and any other related assessments.

1.1.19 Unit means a residential unit in the Project.

1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference are incorporated herein and made a part of, this Agreement:

Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit B Project Layout Plan
Exhibit C Sample Computation of Purchase Price for Restricted AH Units
Exhibit D Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Units
Exhibit E Covenant Deed of Trust
ARTICLE 2. RESTRICTED AH UNITS

2.1 Purchase Price for Restricted AH Unit.

2.1.1 Determination. Developer shall sell each of the Restricted AH Units to an Eligible Purchaser for an amount that does not exceed the applicable Purchase Price for the Restricted AH Unit.

2.1.2 Example Computation of Purchase Price. Example computations of the Purchase Prices for Restricted AH Units are provided on Exhibit C.

2.1.3 Loan. The maximum first-position mortgage or home loan amount for a Restricted AH Unit shall not exceed ninety-five percent (95%) of the Purchase Price for Restricted AH Unit. The maximum home loan amount for the Restricted AH Unit shall be submitted by Developer and approved or rejected by City within ten (10) business days from receipt. The maximum first mortgage can be comprised of 2 or more separate loans but collectively cannot exceed the amounts specified above.

2.1.4 Actual Down Payment. The maximum down payment contributed by an Eligible Purchaser shall not exceed 20% of the Purchase Price for the Residential AH Unit.

2.2 Purchase Price Ranges for Restricted AH Units. Prior to listing the Restricted AH Units, Developer shall calculate the applicable purchase Prices for each Restricted AH Unit based on the number of bedrooms included in the applicable Restricted AH Unit and the range for the Applicable AH Household Income level. City shall reasonably cooperate to provide such confirmation to Developer within ten (10) business days of written request therefore.

2.3 Marketing and Selection of Eligible Purchasers.
(a) Developer shall conduct, “Required Marketing Efforts” in connection with the initial sales of the Restricted AH Units, which shall include: (i) production of specific marketing information highlighting the Restricted AH Units, including the specific affordability features for each Restricted AH Unit and the eligibility requirements and restrictions applicable to each Restricted AH

5 Unit; and (ii) utilization of typical web-based outreach methods that can reasonably ensure an effective and efficient means of reaching the broadest range of potential Eligible Purchasers, including best efforts to contact nonprofit organizations and business associations that serve San Dimas residents in housing-related issues, and affordable housing advocacy groups, with the intent of reaching community based organizations serving people in the appropriate income levels. The City agrees, at no cost to City, to use its best efforts to identify, and reasonably assist the Developer with contacting, nonprofit organizations and business associations that serve San Dimas residents in housing-related issues, and affordable housing advocacy groups. Required Marketing Efforts will additionally include those marketing efforts that are typical customary practice and expected for the sale of real estate in the County of Los Angeles, including, a website marketing the Restricted AH Units in detail (sizes, locations, prices) and the criteria used to purchase them, as well as a form for interested parties to complete online indicating their interest in being notified about the availability of the Restricted AH Units.
(b) The Restricted AH Units may be sold to Eligible Purchasers selected by Developer who meet the income and affordability requirements provided in this Agreement and subject to the written approval of City. The City acknowledges the challenging nature of selling Restricted AH Units and agrees, at no cost to City, to reasonably assist the Developer with the advertising and marketing of the Restricted AH Units, which shall include a link on the City’s website directing potential purchasers to the Developer’s website for the Project. Developer is not required to sell a Restricted AH Unit to an Eligible Purchaser referred by City, but Developer shall accept or reject any such Eligible Purchaser based upon the same evaluation criteria that Developer applies to buyers of other Restricted AH Units. Upon City’s request, Developer shall provide to City a written response detailing the reasons for rejection of an Eligible Purchaser referred by City. (c) Determination of approval, contingent approval, or disapproval of Eligible Purchasers submitted to City (or City’s Representative under Section 2.10) under the terms of this Agreement shall be made promptly after receipt of all required documents and information from the proposed Eligible Purchaser, but in no event more than 30 days after receipt. (d) Subject to applicable federal and state fair housing laws and provided that the applicants meet standard applicant screening standards for the Project, Developer shall use its reasonable commercial efforts to sell the Restricted AH Units to Eligible Purchasers who are residents of the City or persons employed or that have been offered employment in the City (collectively, "Resident Purchasers"). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, nothing in this Section shall require: (a) that the local residency/work preference be based on a minimum duration for residency or employment, or (b) that Developer refrain from selling Restricted AH Units to Eligible Purchasers who are not Resident Purchasers. To the extent the preferences required under this Section 3.3(d) conflict with the requirements of applicable federal and state fair housing laws, the requirements of the applicable federal and state fair housing laws will supersede the provisions of this Section 3.3(d).

2.4 Income and Assets of Eligible Purchasers. Prior to the sale of the Restricted AH Unit, Developer shall submit to City a completed income computation and certification form acceptable to or otherwise provided by City certifying that the Gross Income of the Eligible Purchaser (including any co-purchaser) does not exceed the limit established for the Restricted AH Unit.

Developer shall obtain an income certification form from the proposed Eligible Purchaser certifying that (i) the income of the proposed Eligible Purchaser is truthfully set forth in the income certification form; (ii) the proposed Eligible Purchaser does not own any real estate; and (iii) the proposed Eligible Purchase is not an Ineligible Purchaser.

No Eligible Purchaser (nor any co-purchaser) shall own any other real property at the close of escrow for the applicable Restricted AH Unit. Furthermore, no Eligible Purchaser (nor any coPage 287 – 427 6 purchaser) shall own any liquid assets whose aggregate value exceeds, at the time of determination of eligibility, that exceeds $25,000. As used herein, the term “liquid assets” refers to cash and assets which are readily convertible to cash within a reasonable period, including but not limited to savings and checking accounts, certificates of deposit of any term, marketable securities, money market and similar accounts, mutual fund shares, and insurance policy cash values. The term “liquid assets” shall not include any retirement funds which are not readily accessible or which cannot be accessed by the buyer without the buyer incurring a penalty or any funds to be used to pay closing costs or to make the down payment on the Restricted AH Unit.

Developer shall verify the income certification of the proposed Eligible Purchaser by providing the following documents:
 Signed copies of the two most recent years of federal income tax returns (with all schedules and attachments) for all Household members and persons who will appear on title to the Restricted AH Unit. If self-employed, four most recent quarterly tax filings must be provided.
 Copies of three most recent months of checking, savings, and other investment account statements for all Household members and persons who will appear on title to the Restricted AH Unit.
 If applicable:
• Copy of separation agreement, divorce decree evidencing dissolution of marriage and/or alimony.
• paycheck stubs from the proposed Eligible Purchaser’s three (3) most recent pay periods.
• Copy of pension statements.
• income verification certification from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if the proposed Eligible Purchaser receives assistance from such agencies.

Developer shall provide copies of all verification documentation to City.

2.5 Ineligible Purchaser. No Relative (as defined below) of (a) any employee, officer, board member or shareholder of Developer (or any successor Developer of the Project) or any of its members, affiliates or subsidiaries, or (b) any employee or official of City, may purchase a Restricted AH Unit . “Relative” shall mean a parent, children, sibling, spouse, uncle, aunt, cousin, niece, nephew, grandparent, and grandchild and shall also extend to any of the foregoing persons related through marriage (i.e. in-laws or step relationships.)

2.6 Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit. In accordance with Section 2.7 below, each Restricted AH Unit shall be subject to the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit which shall be effective for a period of fifty-five (55) years (unless terminated pursuant to such Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit) commencing on the date of the recordation of (i) the grant deed from Developer to the Eligible Purchaser of the Restricted AH Unit; together with (ii) the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit and the Covenant Deed of Trust.

2.7 Close of Escrow for Restricted AH Unit.

7 2.7.1 FMV for Restricted AH Unit. Developer shall determine the FMV of the Restricted AH Unit which would be the sale price of the Unit if it was not restricted. Developer may determine the FMV for the Restricted AH Unit based on its sale prices within the Project for comparable Units which shall be confirmed by a written broker opinion. Developer shall provide such information to City regarding the determination of the FMV of the Restricted AH Unit. The FMV of the Restricted AH Unit shall be inserted in the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit prior to execution by the Eligible Purchaser and City.

2.7.2 Process for Sale of Restricted AH Unit. The sale of the Restricted AH Unit to the Eligible Purchaser shall comply with the following requirements. (a) A full copy of the executed sale agreement between Developer and the Eligible Purchaser shall be provided to City.
(b) The Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit shall be executed and acknowledged by the Eligible Purchaser and City. Concurrently the Eligible Purchaser shall also execute and acknowledge the Covenant Deed of Trust. The Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit and Covenant Deed of Trust shall be recorded in the Official Records, subordinate to the First Deed of Trust (as defined in the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit).
(c) A Request for Notice (as to the First Trust Deed) which shall be recorded at the closing.
(d) A Request for Notice of Delinquency executed by the Eligible Purchaser and City as to the First Trust Deed which shall be recorded at the closing. (e) The Eligible Purchaser shall provide a certification in a form acceptable to City declaring under penalty of perjury that it is an Eligible Purchaser and such other information as requested by City.
(f) Developer shall provide a certification in a form acceptable to City declaring under penalty of perjury with respect to compliance with this Agreement as to the sale of the Restricted AH Unit.
(g) City shall execute a release of this Agreement from the Restricted AH Unit to be recorded at the close of escrow in accordance with Section 2.9. (h) Upon close of escrow, escrow holder shall promptly deliver to City (i) conformed copies of all recorded documents, (ii) a copy of the escrow closing statement, (iii) complete final copies of all executed loan documents for the senior loan; and (iv) the Title Policy pursuant to Section 2.8.

2.8 Title Insurance Policy. At the close of the escrow for each Restricted AH Unit, an ALTA loan policy of title insurance shall be provided to City insuring the Covenant Deed of Trust subordinate only to the First Trust Deed in the amount of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the difference between the FMV of the Restricted AH Unit less the purchase price of that Restricted AH Unit (“Title Policy”). The cost of the Title Policy shall be paid by Developer.

2.9 Release. At the close of escrow for each Restricted AH Unit, this Agreement shall terminate AS TO THAT SPECIFIC RESTRICTED AH UNIT ONLY. City shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to escrow in time for close of escrow, such documentation as reasonably required by the title company to confirm the release of this Agreement as to the applicable Restricted AH Unit.

8 2.10 Use of Qualified Third Party. City may retain a third party who is qualified to provide the financial analysis and verification of each Eligible Purchaser as well as the calculation of the applicable Purchase Price for a Restricted AH Unit. Developer shall reimburse City for the cost of the qualified third party reasonably acceptable to Developer. Keyser Marston Associates (“Keyser Marston”) is approved as such a qualified third party to provide such services. Developer may propose alternative qualified affordable housing consultant over which City maintains approval rights.

If City elects to do the financial analysis and verification of an Eligible Purchaser, Developer shall pay City a flat rate not to exceed $1,000.00 per proposed Eligible Purchaser file reviewed by the City.

ARTICLE 3. SALES AND RELEASES

3.1 Timing of Sale of Restricted AH Units. Developer shall use diligent efforts to market and sell the Restricted AH Units concurrently with the sale of the Market Rate Units. For the issuance of certificates of occupancy for every eight (8) Market Rate Units, Developer must contract an income Eligible Purchaser with that contract in escrow at least one (1) of the Restricted AH Units. Developer shall provide a copy of the contract with the Eligible Purchaser to City. Compliance with this requirement may be enforced by City by not issuing additional certificates of occupancy for the Market Rate Units until Developer is in compliance. Developer agrees that final Market Rate Unit in the Project shall not receive certificate of occupancy prior to closing of all AH Units to Eligible Purchasers.

City recognizes that timing of sale and closing of Restricted AH Units is contingent on many factors, including, but not limited to, availability of appropriate income eligible households and the City’s review and timely approval of Eligible Purchasers submitted by Developer to City. Therefore, provided that Developer is not in default of this Agreement and is diligently working to locate Eligible Purchasers and provides reasonable evidence of same, this requirement may be waived or modified, in whole or in part, by the City Manager, based on a reasonable exercise of his or her discretion.

3.2 Release of Market Rate Units. Provided Developer is in compliance with the requirements in Section 3.1, upon transfer of any Market Rate Unit to an individual owner in conformity with the California Department of Real Estate issued public report (“White Report”), the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate with respect to that Market Rate Unit. City shall cooperate with providing any documents which the title company may require to effect the foregoing.

3.3 Common Area Property. Upon transfer of common area within the Project to the homeowners association which governs the Project in accordance with the White Report, this Agreement shall automatically terminate with respect to the common area so transferred. City shall cooperate with providing any documents which the title company may require to effect theforegoing.

ARTICLE 4. DUTIES AND RIGHTS

4.1 Construction of Project. As required by the Density Bonus Law, the Restricted AH Units shall be constructed concurrently with the Market Rate Units and the Restricted AH Units shall be dispersed through the Project as designated on the Project Layout.

4.2 Maintenance. Until fee title of a Restricted AH Unit is transferred to an Eligible Purchaser, Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the interiors and exteriors of the Restricted AH Units in good, decent, safe and sanitary manner, in accordance with the standard of maintenance of the other Units in the Project.

4.3 Monitoring. Representatives of City shall be entitled to inspect and copy any and all records of Developer relating to sales of the Restricted AH Units to Eligible Purchasers at any time, upon reasonable notice, and to conduct an audit of such records. City shall pay the cost of the audit, provided, however, that if the audit discloses a default by Developer, the cost of the audit shall be borne by Developer who shall, upon demand, promptly reimburse City for the cost of the audit. Until

9 a Restricted AH Unit is occupied by an Eligible Purchaser, representatives of City shall, upon reasonable notice to Developer, be entitled to enter the Restricted AH Unit to monitor compliance with this Agreement. City shall have the right to transfer this Agreement and the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit to any other public agency in its sole discretion.

ARTICLE 5. ENFORCEMENT

5.1 Enforcement & Remedies. City shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law upon the default of the terms of this Agreement by Developer, including to the extent applicable:
(a) specific performance of the terms of this Agreement; (b) disgorgement of any amounts of sales proceeds which exceed the Purchase Price for Restricted AH Unit; (c) an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees, specifically including the cost to City of time expended by the office of City Attorney and reasonable expert and attorneys’ fees; (iv) damages; (v) right to revoke certificates of occupancy; (vi) record a lien against the Property; and (vii) any other remedies available at law or equity. The rights and remedies are cumulative, and the exercise of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default.

5.2 Indemnification. Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or property, including the payment by Developer of any and all reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of Developer pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnification obligations of Developer under this Agreement shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.

5.3 Agreement Appurtenant to Property. This Agreement is appurtenant to and shall run with the Property as an equitable servitude and covenant in favor of City and shall be binding on all successors of the Property until this Agreement is otherwise terminated.

5.4 Term. This Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect (except as specified below) upon the last to occur (i) all Restricted AH Units have been sold to qualified Eligible Purchasers in accordance with this Agreement as evidenced by a recorded grant deed; and (ii) the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit and Covenant Deed of Trust have been executed by the Eligible Purchaser of each of the Restricted AH Units and recorded against the Restricted AH Unit concurrently with the grant deed. Notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement of record, the provisions of Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1 shall remain in full force and effect as the personal obligation of Developer to City or City to Developer, as applicable.

5.5 Further Assurances; City Manager Authority. The parties shall execute any further documents in recordable form consistent with the terms of this Agreement as may from time to time be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, approvals or consents required of City shall be deemed granted by the written approval of City Manager or his/her designee. City Manager is also authorized to execute any further documents on behalf of City, including the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit and any subordination agreements for the sale of the Restricted AH Unit.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, City Manager or designee may, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, refer to City Councill any item requiring City approval.

5.6 Cooperation Covenant. The parties agree to cooperate with each other to effect the intent of this Agreement including, but not limited to, modifying some provisions in this Agreement (and the Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit) as may be reasonably required by the California Department of Real Estate or other applicable governmental agencies.

10 5.7 Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS

6.1 Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any action or proceeding is brought by either party against the other under this Agreement, whether for interpretation, enforcement or otherwise, whether or not a final court judgment is entered, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing party in such legal proceeding, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses and consultant and expert witness fees and expenses.

6.2 Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in all force and effect.

6.3 Construction. The provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed for the purpose of effecting the intent under the Density Bonus Law and City Council Resolution to increase the number of affordable dwellings in City. The article and section headings have been inserted for convenience only, and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction.

6.4 Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by written agreement executed by Developer and City and recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County.

6.5 Notices. Formal notices, demands and communications between City and Developer shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally, or dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the respective addresses of City and Developer. Such notices, demands and communications, if given in person, shall be deemed given when delivered, and, if given by mail, shall be deemed given three (3) business days after deposit in the mail. If delivered by national overnight carrier service, it shall be deemed to have been delivered the following business day. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent to the following addresses unless either party designates by notice a different address:

To Developer: RC Homes, Inc.
550 N. Larchmont Blvd, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90004
Attn: Matthew Livingston, Esq.

To City: City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
Attn: City Manager
With a copy to: Jeffrey Malawy, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
1 Park Place Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614

6.6 Conflicts of Interest.

6.6.1 No member, official or employee of City shall have any personal interest,

11 direct or indirect, in this Agreement; nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested.

6.6.2 Developer warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any person any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement, other than normal fees paid to Developer’s independent contractors, attorneys, and consultants.

6.7 Non-liability. No member, official, employee, attorney or consultant of City shall be personally liable to Developer, or any successor in interest of Developer, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer or to its successor, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. No director, officer, employee, attorney or consultant of Developer shall be personally liable to City, or any successor in interest of City, in the event of any default or breach by Developer or for any amount which may become due to City or to its successor, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

6.8 Qualification; Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer, represents, warrants and covenants to City that (a) Developer is duly formed and authorized to do business in the state of its incorporation, (b) such person is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of Developer in accordance with authority granted under the organizational documents of such entity, and (c) Developer is bound under the terms of this Agreement.

6.9 Assignment Prohibited. Developer shall not assign or transfer any portion of this Agreement without the prior express written consent of City, which consent may be given or withheld in City’s sole discretion. However, if any such assignment or transfer is to a purchaser of the entire Project, City shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent of the assignment provided that the purchaser shall assume all obligations under this Agreement in a form satisfactory to City.

6.10 No Waiver. The failure of City to enforce any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement on the date it is to be performed shall not be construed as a waiver of City’s right to enforce this, or any other, term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement at any later date or as a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as indicated below.

CITY: DEVELOPER:

CITY OF SAN DIMAS,
a municipal corporation
By:

Emmett Badar , Mayor
ATTEST:

RC HOMES, INC., a California corporation
By:

Matthew David Livingston,
President & Secretary
Debra Black, MMC
City Clerk

12 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP.

By:

Jeffrey Malawy, Esq

1 EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
That certain real property in City of San Dimas, County of Los Angeles, State of California legally described as follows:

2 Page 296 – 427
1 EXHIBIT B

PROJECT LAYOUT

1 EXHIBIT C
Sample Computation of Purchase Price for Restricted AH Units (2 examples)
See next page

2 Page 299 – 427
1 EXHIBIT D
Covenant Agreement for Restricted AH Unit

1 APN: SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USEONLY
Exempt from recording fee per Gov. Code §§ 27383 & 6103

AFFORDABILITY COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY AND

OPTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST
Owner:

Residence:

San Dimas, California

THIS AFFORDABILITY COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING REAL

PROPERTY AND OPTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this day of , 20 (“Agreement Date”) by and between CITY OF SAN DIMAS, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and (jointly and severally “Owner”). City and Owner are
sometimes referred to as a “Party” and jointly as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. Concurrently with the recordation of this Agreement, Owner has acquired that certain residence located at in City of San Dimas, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference (“Residence”).

B. The Residence is part of that certain residential development commonly known as “ ” (“Project”) which was developed by RC HOMES, INC., a California corporation (“Developer”).

C. As a condition to developing the Project, Developer was required to record covenants to designate and restrict seven (7) of the units in the Project as affordable housing. Developer and City entered into that certain Master Affordable Housing Covenant and Density Bonus Agreement dated , 202_ recorded on , 202 as Instrument No. in the Official Records of Los Angeles County (“Developer Agreement”).

D. Pursuant to the Developer Agreement, the use, occupancy and transfer of the Residence is restricted to qualified -Income purchasers to ensure its continued availability to Income Households (as defined below) for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years.

The term “Restricted Level Income Household” means a household whose Gross Income, as defined in California Code of Regulations Title 25 Housing and Community Development Section 6914, meets the standards defined in the applicable provision of the California Health & Safety Code and applicable regulations adopted by HCD, including Subchapter 2 of Division

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of San Dimas
245 S. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91717
Attn: City Clerk

2 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulation (beginning at Section 6910) (“HCD Laws/Regulations”).

E. Owner is acquiring the Residence pursuant to the Developer Agreement for a purchase price of Dollars ($ ) (“Original Sales Price”) which amount is less than the fair market value of the Residence which is agreed to be Dollars ($ ) as of the Effective Date
(“Original Fair Market Value”). In consideration for acquiring the Residence at less than its Original Fair Market Value, Owner agrees that the Residence shall be restricted by the covenants and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement.

F. This Agreement is secured by a deed of trust executed by Owner and recorded concurrently with this Agreement in the Official Records (“Deed of Trust”).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for Owner acquiring the Residence for less than the Original Fair Market Value, Owner agrees to the following covenants and restrictions which shall run with the Residence in favor of the City.

1. DEFINITIONS.

The following terms shall have the definitions below which can be found in the referenced sections:
“Agreement” – Preamble (page 1).
“Agreement Date” – Preamble (page 1).
“Alternative Sale” – Section 10(b).
“Base Price” – Section 12.1.
“Breach Notice” – Section 14.
“City” – Preamble (page 1).
“City’s Share of Appreciation” – Section 13.2.
“Deed of Trust” – Recital F.
“Default Interest” – Section 13.2.
“Default Purchase Exercise Notice” – Section 15.1.
“Default Purchase Option” – Section 15.1.
“Effective Date” – Section 2.
“Eligible Purchaser” – Section 11.2.
“Eligible Transfer” – Section 11.
“Exercise Notice” – Section 8.

3 “Exercise Price” – Section 8.
“Fair Market Value” – Section 9.1.
“First Lender” – Section 21.1.
“First Deed of Trust” – Section 21.1.
“Gross Income – Recital D.
“HCD Laws/Regulations” – Recital D.
“Increased Base Price” – Section 12.1.
“Ineligible Purchaser” – Section 10(b).
“Initial Subsidy” – Section 13.2.
“Listing Agreement” – Section 10.1.
“Notice of Default” – Section 14.
“Official Records” – Section 2.
“Option” – Section 8.
“Original Fair Market Value” – Recital E.
“Owner” – Preamble (page 1).
“Owner’s Share of Appreciation” – Section 13.3.
“Project” – Recital B.
“Proposed Purchaser” – Section 10.
“Relative” – Section 3.
“Residence” – Recital A.
“Restricted Level Income Household” – RecitalD.
“Restricted Sales Price” – Section 12.
“Restrictive Covenants” – Section 11.1(e).
“Subordination Agreement” – Section 21.2.
“Term” – Section 2.
“Total Appreciation” – Section 13.4.
“Transfer” – Section 5.

4 “Transfer Notice” – Section 7.
“Value of Capital Improvements” – Section 12.2.

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The covenants, restrictions and equitable servitudes in this Agreement shall burden the Residence and run in favor of and for the benefit of, City. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date this Agreement is recorded (“Effective Date”) in the Official Records of Los Angeles County (“Official Records”) and shall continue for a term of fifty-five (55) years, unless otherwise terminated as set forth in this Agreement including, but not limited to, Sections 8, 13 and/or 17 (“Term”).

3. OWNER CERTIFICATIONS. Owner certifies to City that (i) the financial and other information previously provided in order to qualify to purchase the Residence was true, correct and complete; (ii) Owner does not own any other residential property as of the Agreement Date; (iii) Owner intends to occupy the Residence as Owner’s principal place of residence; and (iv) Owner is not a Relative (as defined below) of any employee, officer, board member or shareholder of Developer (or any successor Developer of the Project) or any of its members, affiliates, or subsidiaries, or of any employee or official of City. “Relative” shall mean a parent, child, sibling, spouse, uncle, aunt, cousin, niece, nephew, grandparent and grandchild and shall also extend to any of the foregoing persons related through marriage (i.e. in-laws or step relationships).

4. LEASING AND OCCUPANCY OF RESIDENCE; ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.

4.1. Occupancy of Residence. Owner shall continuously occupy the Residence as his/her/their principal residence. City may grant a temporary written waiver of this occupancy requirement for good cause in its reasonable discretion. No more than ( ) persons shall occupy the Residence, not including children born after the Effective Date.

4.2. Leasing of Residence. Owner may not lease any portion of the Residence.

4.3. Annual Certification. On an annual basis, Owner shall provide a certification in a form required by City that the Residence is owned and occupied byOwner.

5. TRANSFER OF RESIDENCE. “Transfer” means any sale, assignment or transfer, voluntary or involuntary, of any interest in the Residence, including, but not limited to, a fee simple interest, a joint tenancy interest, a life estate, a leasehold interest, or an interest under a land sale contract by which possession of the Residence is transferred and Owner retains title. Any Transfer without satisfaction of the provisions of this Agreement is prohibited. Transfers by gift, devise, or inheritance to an existing spouse, children, surviving joint tenant, or a spouse as part of a dissolution proceeding or in connection with marriage, shall not be considered a Transfer for the purposes of this Agreement.

6. REFINANCE OF RESIDENCE.

6.1 Refinancing of First Deed of Trust. Subject to Section 6.3, Owner may refinance a loan secured by a First Deed of Trust (defined in Section 20.1) encumbering the Residence provided that City has previously reviewed and approved in writing the terms and conditions thereof including, but not limited to, the principal amount of the proposed loan, the interest rate, the terms of repayment, the identity of the maker of the proposed loan, any documentation pertaining to the subordination or enforcement of this Agreement, and the costs and fees associated with the making of the proposed loan. Owner must have received the written approval of the proposed loan by City prior to the date of its closing. In the event of a proposed refinance that includes a principal

5 amount in excess of that needed to repay the loan secured by the First Deed of Trust, any approval by City shall include conditions which, in the sole discretion of City, are warranted in order to insure the continued affordability of the Residence. Any refinancing of a First Deed of Trust that has not been previously approved by City shall constitute a default under this Agreement.

6.2 Junior Liens. Subject to Section 6.3, Owner may enter into a loan secured by a lien junior and subordinate to this Agreement provided that (i) the proceeds of each loan shall be used solely to pay for repairs or the construction of improvements to the Residence which improvements are consistent with all applicable covenants and restrictions of the Project; (ii) City has previously reviewed and approved the terms and conditions thereof, including, but not limited to, the principal amount of the proposed loan, the interest rate, the terms of repayment, the identity of the maker of the proposed loan, the costs and fees associated with the making of the proposed loan, and the nature and costs of the proposed repairs or the construction of improvements, to be paid with the proceeds thereof; and (iii) Owner shall have received the written approval of the proposed loan by City prior to the date of its closing. Without limiting the foregoing, the proceeds of the proposed loan shall not be used to pay for the construction of improvement of a luxury nature such as ground pools, spas, or interior or exterior decorative items, or improvements with an unreasonable useful life. The failure of Owner to comply fully with the provisions of this subsection when entering into a loan that is secured by a lien junior and subordinate to this Agreement shall constitute a default under this Agreement.

6.3 Notification Prior to Encumbrance or Hypothecation. If Owner desires to refinance a First Deed of Trust pursuant to Section 6.1, or to borrow funds for a new loan to be secured by a junior lien encumbering the Residence the proceeds of which are to be used to pay for repairs or the construction of improvements to the Residence pursuant to Section 6.2, prior written approval of City is required. Owner must request such approval in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the recordation of a lien securing any such refinancing or loan, Owner shall submit in writing the following information and the applicable documents:
i. Name and address of lender.
ii. Terms of the loan, including, but not limited to, principal, interest rate, term, and loan fees.
iii. Closing date of the loan.
iv. Copy of all proposed escrow instructions, loan applications, security agreement, loan documents, and other agreements between Owner and the lender.
v. Written documentation of compliance with the conditions for City approval as set forth in Section 6.1 and 6.2, as applicable. vi. Other written documentation reasonably requested by City.

City shall have fifteen (15) business days after its receipt of all of such information to approve or disapprove the proposed refinancing or loan. If the City does not issue its written approval within the fifteen (15) business day period, the loan shall be deemed disapproved.

6 7. NOTICE OF INTENDED TRANSFER. In the event Owner intends to sell or vacate the Residence, Owner shall promptly notify City in writing of such intent delivered at least sixty (60) days prior to the date Owner intends to list the Residence for sale or vacation of the Residence (“Transfer Notice”).

8. CITY PURCHASE OPTION. Upon City’s receipt of a Transfer Notice, City shall have the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the Residence for the Exercise Price (defined below) (“Option”). City may exercise its Option to purchase the Residence by delivering written notice of exercise to Owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Transfer Notice (“Exercise Notice”). Within ninety (90) days of the date of the Exercise Notice, City shall purchase the Residence at the lesser of: (i) the Fair Market Value of the Residence, or (ii) Restricted Sales Price calculated pursuant to Section 12 (“Exercise Price”). City may assign its right to purchase the Residence to an Eligible Purchaser or to a governmental agency or nonprofit organization that is devoted to developing or preserving low and moderate income housing. After a Transfer, if the City does not exercise the Option, the Option rights set forth herein shall remain in full force and effect and apply to any future Transfer of the Residence during the Term.

9. FAIR MARKET VALUE.

9.1. After the Effective Date, the term “Fair Market Value” shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 1263.320 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as it now exists or may subsequently be amended and shall be determined by a real estate appraiser selected by City. The appraiser shall have been previously approved by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Housing Administration and at the time of the appraisal shall be on the list of approved single-family housing appraisers. If possible, the appraisal shall be based upon properties sold in the market during the three (3) month period prior to the date of the Transfer Notice. The cost of the appraisal shall be divided equally between City and Owner. In the event that improvements to the Residence have been made by Owner that increase the value of the Residence, or if damage to the Residence has occurred or deferred maintenance while Owner owned the Residence has decreased the value of the Residence, the appraisal shall specifically ascribe a value to these adjustment factors and state what the Fair Market Value of the Residence would be without such adjustments. Nothing in this Section shall preclude Owner and City from establishing the Fair Market Value of the Residence by mutual written agreement in lieu of an appraisal pursuant to thisSection.

9.2. If no appraisal has been conducted pursuant to Section 9.1, and it is necessary to determine the Value of Capital Improvements made to the Residence by Owner, such determination shall be made by a real estate appraiser selected by City. The cost of the appraisal shall be divided equally between City and Owner.

10. TRANSFER BY OWNER.
a. Transfer to Eligible Purchaser: If City does not exercise its Option in the time and manner specified in Section 8, Owner may list the Residence with a licensed real estate broker for sale to an Eligible Purchaser (“Listing Agreement”) who meets the Eligible Transfer requirements in Section 11 and the maximum amount that Owner may receive for the Transfer shall be the Restricted Sales Price and the transfer shall comply with the requirements in Section 11. Owner shall promptly provide City with a copy of the Listing Agreement. Owner, City and the broker will work together to locate an Eligible Purchaser. b. Transfer to Ineligible Purchaser: If an Eligible Purchaser does not make an offer to purchase within six (6) months from the date of the Listing Agreement, Owner may proceed

7 to enter a new listing agreement for the sale of the Residence for fair market value to a a buyer who does not meet the Eligible Transfer requirements of Section 11 (“Alternative Sale”), in which event the gross proceeds of such sale shall be divided between Owner and City pursuant to Section 13. The transferee of an Alternative Sale is referred to herein as an “Ineligible Purchaser”.

11. ELIGIBLE TRANSFER. A Transfer of the Residence that meets the requirements set forth in this Section 11 shall qualify as an approved Transfer to an Eligible Purchaser (as defined below) (“Eligible Transfer”).

11.1. Disclosures and Submittals. Owner and the Proposed Purchaser shall provide the following information in writing and documents to City:
a. The name, address and telephone number of the Proposed Purchaser. b. Financial information certified by the Proposed Purchaser in a form acceptable to City and any other supporting documentation requested by City which shall include authorization for City to verify the information provided. The financial information shall be used by City to determine the income eligibility of the Proposed Purchaser as a Restricted Level Income Household in accordance with HCDLaws/Regulations. c. The proposed sales contract, escrow instructions and all other related documents that shall set forth the terms of the sale of the Residence. d. A written certification from Owner and the Proposed Purchaser in a form acceptable to City that the sale shall be closed in accordance with the terms of the sales contract and other documents submitted to and approved by City. The certification shall also provide that the Proposed Purchaser or any other party has not paid and will not pay to Owner, and Owner has not received and will not receive from the Proposed Purchaser or any other party, money or other consideration, including personal property, in addition to what is set forth in the sales contract and documents submitted to City. The written certification shall also include a provision that in the event a Transfer is made in violation of the terms of this Agreement or false or misleading statements are made in any documents or certification submitted to City, City shall have the right to file an action at law or in equity to make the parties terminate and/or rescind the sale contract and/or declare the sale void or pursue damages, notwithstanding the fact that the sale may have closed and become final as between Owner and the Proposed Purchaser. In any event, any costs, liabilities or obligations incurred by Owner and the Proposed Purchaser for the return of any monies paid or received in violation hereunder or for any costs and legal expenses, shall be borne by Owner and/or the Proposed Purchaser and they shall hold City and its designee harmless and reimburse their expenses, legal fees and costs for any action they reasonably take in good faith in enforcing the terms of this Agreement. e. Restrictive Covenants in favor of the City executed and acknowledged by the Proposed Purchaser with substantially the same terms as the terms of this Agreement in a form acceptable to the City (“Restrictive Covenants”). City’s approval of the proposed sale shall be effective upon the recordation in the Official Records of both the Restrictive Covenants and a request for notice of default under the First Deed of Trust in favor of City. City may require the Proposed Purchaser to pay a reasonable fee to City and reimburse it for out of pocket costs to cover the costs of administering its right and obligations under this Agreement.

8 f. Upon the close of the proposed sale, the escrow must provide to City a conformed copy of the recorded Restrictive Covenants, a Request for Notice of Delinquency and the Request for Notice, a copy of the final sales contract, settlement statement, escrow instructions, an endorsement updating the City’s loan title insurance policy and any other document that City may reasonably request.

11.2. Eligibility of Purchaser. A Proposed Purchaser who meets the following requirements shall be an “Eligible Purchaser”:
a. Each Proposed Purchaser shall certify to City in a form acceptable to City that he or she will occupy the Residence as his or her principal residence; b. Each Proposed Purchaser shall not own any other real property; and c. The combined Gross Income for all household members of the Proposed Purchaser qualifies as a Restricted Level Income Household in accordance with HCD Laws/Regulations.

11.3. Reimbursement to City. City may retain a third party who is qualified to provide the financial analysis and verification of each Eligible Purchaser as well as the calculation of the applicable Purchase Price for a Restricted AH Unit. Owner shall reimburse City for the cost of the qualified third party service provider to complete the financial analysis and verification process. If City elects to do the financial analysis and verification of an Eligible Purchaser, Owner shall pay City the same amount which would be charged by a qualified third party provider.

12. DETERMINATION OF SALES PRICE. The maximum sales price (“Restricted Sales Price”) that Owner shall receive for an Eligible Transfer of the Residence shall be the Increased Base Price as adjusted by Section 12.2, but, in no event, shall the sales price exceed the amount specified in Section 50052.5 of the Health & Safety Code and HCD Laws/Regulations.

12.1. Increased Base Price. The “Base Price” of the Residence means the purchase price paid by Owner (which is set forth in Recital E for the initial Owner), inclusive of closing costs actually paid by Owner. The “Increased Base Price” of the Residence means the Base Price, increased by the percentage of increase for a Restricted Level Income Household adjusted for family size, for Los Angeles County as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as determined by California Health & Safety Code Section 50000 et seq. and applicable regulations adopted from time to time. The increase in household income shall be computed from the date of the original purchase of the Residence by Owner to the date of Transfer Notice. In the event that such income determination is no longer published, or has not been updated for a period of at least eighteen (18) months, City may use or develop such other reasonable method as it may choose in order to determine such increase in income.

12.2. Adjusted Increased Base Price. The Increased Base Price shall also be adjusted for the Value of Capital Improvements. The “Value of Capital Improvements” shall mean the value of substantial structural or permanent fixed improvements that cannot be removed without substantial damage to the Residence or substantial or total loss of value of the improvements. No such valuation shall be made except for improvements (i) made or installed by or under the direction of Owner and permitted by the covenants restricting the Project; (ii) approved in advance by City or its designee; and (iii) with an initial cost of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) or more. The value of such improvements to be taken into account in calculation of the Increased Base Price shall be the increase in value of the Residence by reason of the improvements, and shall be determined by agreement of City and Owner, or, in the event of failure to agree, by appraisal pursuant to Section 9.2.

9 13. ALTERNATIVE SALE & PAYMENT TO CITY. If a Transfer is not to an Eligible Purchaser (i.e., an Alternative Sale), Owner and City shall each receive a portion of the proceeds of the sale pursuant to this Section.

13.1. Disclosures and Submittals. Owner and Proposed Purchaser shall deliver to City the same information and documents as required by Section 11.1, except that (i) the financial statement of the Proposed Purchaser described in Section 11.1(b), and (ii) the Restrictive Covenants described in Section 11.1(e) and 11.1(f), shall not be required.

13.2. Amount Paid to City. City shall be entitled to receive the lesser of (i) its Initial Subsidy (defined below) plus the City’s proportionate share of appreciation, and (ii) the sales price (provided the sales price is equal to Fair Market Value). The City’s proportionate share of the Total Appreciation (defined in Section 13.4) shall be equal to the ratio of the City’s Initial Subsidy to the Fair Market Value at the time of the initial sale to Owner (“City’s Share of Appreciation”).

City’s Initial Subsidy means the Original Fair Market Value (as defined in Recital E) minus the Original Sales Price (as defined in Recital E), plus any down payment assistance from City (“Initial Subsidy”).

City’s share of sale proceeds shall be paid to City directly from escrow upon close of the Alternative Sale. In the event the amount due to City is not paid when due, the amount due to City shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum but not to exceed the (maximum amount permitted by law, commencing on the date said amount should have been paid to City until said amount is actually paid to City (“Default Interest”).

13.3. Amount Paid to Owner. Owner shall be entitled to receive the sum of (i) his/her/their down payment, (ii) the Value of Capital Improvements, if any, plus (iii) the Owner’s Share of Appreciation, but less (a) any amounts to pay off the First Lender and any other liens, and (b) closing costs to be paid by Owner. “Owner’s Share of Appreciation” shall be the Total Appreciation of the Residence less the City’s Share of Appreciation.

13.4. “Total Appreciation” shall mean Fair Market Value (as defined in Section 9.1) at the time of the sale, less the sum of (i) the Fair Market Value at the time of original acquisition and (ii) the Value of Capital Improvements.

14. DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES. Upon a breach of this Agreement or the Deed of Trust by Owner, City shall give written notice to Owner specifying in reasonable detail the nature of the breach (“Breach Notice”). If the breach is not cured to the satisfaction of City within (i) ten (10) days after delivery of the Breach Notice for failure to pay any sums due to the City under this Agreement; (ii) within thirty (30) days after delivery of the Breach Notice for failure to cure any non-monetary breach, and (iii) within thirty (30) days after recordation of a notice of default under any senior note or trust deed, City may thereafter elect to declare Owner in default under this Agreement by delivering a notice of default to Owner and First Lender (“Notice of Default”).

Immediately following the Notice of Default, City may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for specific performance of this Agreement, or for any such other relief at law or in equity as may be appropriate, including foreclosure of the Deed of Trust for the amount the amounts to be paid to City pursuant to this Agreement including its attorney’s fees.

15. NON-LIABILITY OF CITY. City shall not be liable or obligated to Owner or any successor-ininterest to Owner by reason of its option to purchase under Section 8 or for any failure to exercise its option to purchase under those Sections.

10 16. FANNIE MAE REQUIREMENTS.

16.1 Insurance Settlements and Condemnation Proceeds. The holder of the First Deed of Trust shall have first claim to insurance settlements and condemnation proceeds.

16.2 Termination Upon Foreclosure or Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. The provisions of this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect upon a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure. Any mortgagee who forecloses or accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take title free and clear of this Agreement and the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, and the City shall not be entitled to any proceeds from future sales or transfer of the property after foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

16.3 Non-Applicability to Private Loans. To the extent Owner obtains a loan from a private individual, the provisions of this Section 16 shall not apply. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this Section 16 are intended to fully comply with all requirements of Fannie Mae and nothing contained in this Section 16.3 shall be deemed to supersede any requirements of 16.1 or 16.2 as to any Fannie Mae loan.

17. RESTRICTIONS OF FORECLOSURE PROCEEDS. If a creditor acquires title to the Residence through a deed in lieu of foreclosure, a trustee’s deed upon foreclosure sale, or otherwise, Owner shall not be entitled to the proceeds of sale to the extent that such proceeds otherwise payable to Owner when added to the proceeds paid or credited to the creditor exceed the amount Owner would have received by a sale in accordance with Section 11. Owner hereby irrevocably instructs the holder of such excess proceeds to pay such proceeds to City as consideration for the regulatory requirements of City allowing the Residence to be sold to a household that would not otherwise have been able to afford it.

18. BINDING ON SUCCESSOR. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefit hereof shall inure to, Owner and his/her/their heirs, legal representatives, executors, successors in interest and assigns for the Term.

19. SUPERIORITY OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. Owner covenants that he/she/they have not, and will not, execute any other agreement with provisions contradictory to or in opposition to the provisions hereof, and that, in any event, this Agreement is controlling as to the rights and obligations between Owner (and its successors) and City.

20. RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARIES UNDER FIRST DEED OF TRUST.

20.1 This Agreement shall not diminish or affect the rights of the First Lender under the First Deed of Trust or any subsequent First Deed of Trust recorded against the Residence after the Effective Date in accordance with Section 6. For purposes of this Agreement, “First Lender” shall be the lender of a purchase money loan used for purchase of the Residence which loan is secured by a deed of trust in first position on record title to the Residence as well as a permitted refinancing permitted under Section 6 (“First Deed of Trust”).

20.2 Upon written request from Owner, City shall execute a subordination agreement in a form reasonably required by the First Lender subordinating this Agreement to the lien of a First Deed of Trust provided that the First Lender agrees (i) to provide notice of any default to City concurrently with such notice being provided to Owner, and (ii) to permit the City to cure any default under the First Deed of Trust (“Subordination Agreement”). Any Subordination Agreement shall only run to the benefit of the First

11 Lender and any subsequent holder of the First Deed of Trust but shall not affect the rights and obligations of City and Owner under this Agreement including, but not limited to, Section 15.

21. INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such provision or provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.

22. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of California.

23. NOTICES. All notices required herein shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested or express delivery service with a delivery receipt and shall be deemed to be effective as date received or the date delivery was refused as indicated on the return receipt as follows:

To Owner: At the address of the Residence
To City: City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
Attn: City Manager
With copy to: City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
Attn: City Attorney
To First Lender: At the address shown on the First Deed of Trust.

A Party may subsequently change addresses by providing written notice of the change in address to the other parties in accordance with this Section 23.

24. ATTORNEY’S FEES. Should either Party incur attorney’s fees in seeking the enforcement of this Agreement, whether or not a final court judgment is entered, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reimbursement of all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing Party in such legal proceeding, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses and consultant and expert witness fees and expenses.

25. AGREEMENT APPURTENANT TO RESIDENCE. This Agreement is appurtenant to and shall run with the Residence as a covenant and equitable servitude in favor of City and shall be binding on all subsequent owners of the Residence.

26. FURTHER ASSURANCES. The Parties shall execute any further documents in recordable form consistent with the terms of this Agreement as may from time to time be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. The City Manager is authorized to execute any further documents on behalf of City.

27. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION. No modification, rescission, waiver, release or amendment of any provision of this Agreement shall be made except by a written agreement executed by Developer and City.

12 28. CONSTRUCTION. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning as if prepared by both Parties to this Agreement. Headings used in this Agreement are provided for convenience only and shall not be used to construe meaning or intent.

29. NO WAIVER. The failure of City to enforce any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement on the date it is to be performed shall not be construed as a waiver of City’s right to enforce this, or any other, term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement at any later date or as a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement.

30. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, discussions and previous agreements between City and Owner concerning all or any part of the subject matter of this Agreement. The Recitals are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement.

31. GOOD FAITH COVENANT. The Parties agree to cooperate in good faith to effect the intent of this Agreement.

32. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. “OWNER” “CITY”
Name:

Name:

CITY OF SAN DIMAS,
a municipal corporation
By:

Emmett Badar , Mayor
ATTEST:

Debra Black, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP.

By:

Jeffrey Malawy, Esq

1 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That certain real property in the City of San Dimas, County of Los Angeles, State of California legally described as follows:

1 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 20 before me, Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary
SEAL

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 20 before me,
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary
SEAL

1 EXHIBIT E
Covenant Deed of Trust

1 APN SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY
Exempt from payment of recording fees pursuant to Government Code § 6103

DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS
(Securing Affordable Housing Covenants)
THIS DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS (“Deed of Trust”) is made as of the day of , 202_, by (as “Trustor”), whose address is
San Dimas, California , to FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (as “Trustee”), for the benefit of the CITY OF SAN DIMAS, a California municipal corporation (as “Beneficiary”), whose address is 245 E. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773.

WITNESSETH: That Trustor grants to Trustee in trust, with power of sale, that property in the City of San Dimas, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by reference (“Property”) together with rents, issues and profits thereof, subject, however, to the right, power and authority hereinafter given to and conferred upon Beneficiary to collect and apply such rents, issues and profits for the purpose of securing (1) that certain Affordability Covenants and Restrictions Affecting Real Property and Option to Purchase Property Secured by Deed of Trust of even date herewith between Trustor and Beneficiary, and extensions of modifications thereof which is being recorded concurrently herewith (“Affordable Housing Agreement”); (2) the performance of each agreement of Trustor incorporated by reference or contained herein; and (3) payment of any and all sums and interest thereon which may hereafter be loaned to Trustor, or his or her successors or assigns, when evidenced by a promissory note or notes reciting that they are secured by this Deed of Trust.

THIS DEED OF TRUST IS HEREBY MODIFIED/SUPPLEMENTED BY THE TERMS OF THAT CERTAIN

RIDER TO DEED OF TRUST WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THIS DEED OF TRUST AND HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

To protect the security of this Deed of Trust, and with respect to the Property, Trustor expressly makes each and all of the agreements, and adopts and agrees to perform and be bound by each and all of the terms and provisions set forth in subdivision A, and it is mutually agreed that each and all of the terms and provisions set forth in subdivision B of the fictitious deed of trust recorded in Orange County August 17, 1964, and in all other counties August 18, 1964, in the book and at the page of Official Records in the office of the county recorder of the county where said property is located, noted below opposite the name of such county,namely:

COUNTY BOOK PAGE COUNTY BOOK PAGE COUNTY BOOK PAGE COUNTY BOOK PAGE Alameda 1288 556 Kings 858 713 Placer 1028 379 Sierra 38 187 Alpine 3 130-31 Lake 437 110 Plumas 166 1307 Siskiyou 506 762 Amador 133 438 Lassen 192 367 Riverside 3778 347 Solano 1287 621 Butte 1330 513 Los Angeles T-3878 874 Sacramento 5039 124 Sonoma 2057 427 Calaveras 185 338 Madera 911 136 San Benito 300 405 Stanislaus 1970 56 Colusa 323 391 Marin 1849 122 San Bernardino 6213 768 Sutter 655 585 Contra Costa 4684 1 Mariposa 90 453 San Francisco A-804 596 Tehama 457 183 Del Norte 101 549 Mendocino 667 99 San Joaquin 2855 283 Trinity 108 595 El Dorado 704 635 Merced 1660 753 San Luis Obispo 1311 137 Tulare 2530 108

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
Attn: City Clerk

2 Fresno 5052 623 Modoc 191 93 San Mateo 4778 175 Tuolumne 177 160 Glenn 469 76 Mono 69 302 Santa Barbara 2055 881 Ventura 2607 237 Humboldt 801 83 Monterey 357 239 Santa Clara 6626 664 Yolo 769 16 Imperial 1189 701 Napa 704 742 Santa Cruz 1638 607 Yuba 398 693 Inyo 165 672 Nevada 363 94 Shasta 800 633
Kern 3756 690 Orange 7182 18 San Diego SERIES 5 Book 1964, Page 149774 shall inure to and bind the parties hereto, with respect to the property above described. Said agreements, terms and provisions contained in said subdivision A and B (identical in all counties, and printed on pages 3 and 4 hereof) are by the within reference thereto, incorporated herein and made a part of this Deed of Trust for all purposes as fully as if set forth at length herein, and Beneficiary may charge for a statement regarding the obligation secured hereby, provided the charge therefor does not exceed the maximum allowed by law.

TRUSTOR

3 DO NOT RECORD
The following is a copy of Subdivisions A and B of the fictitious Deed of Trust recorded in each county in California as stated in the foregoing Deed of Trust and incorporated by reference in said Deed of Trust as being a part thereof as if set forth at length therein.

A. To protect the security of this Deed of Trust, Trustor agrees:
1) To keep said property in good condition and repair, not to remove or demolish any building thereon; to complete or restore promptly and in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be constructed, damaged or destroyed thereon and to pay when due all claims for labor performed and materials furnished therefor, to comply with all laws affecting said property or requiring any alterations or improvements to be made thereon; not to commit or permit waste thereof; not to commit, suffer or permit any act upon said property in violation of law; to cultivate, irrigate, fertilize, fumigate, prune and do all other acts which from the character or use of said property may be reasonably necessary, the specific enumerations herein not excluding the general. 2) To provide, maintain and deliver to Beneficiary fire insurance satisfactory to and with loss payable to Beneficiary. The amount collected under any fire or other insurance policy may be applied by Beneficiary upon any indebtedness secured hereby and in such order as Beneficiary may determine, or at the option of Beneficiary the entire amount so collected or any part thereof may be released to Trustor. Such application or release shall not cure or waive any default or notice of default hereunder or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice.
3) To appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security hereof or the rights or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; and to pay all costs and expenses, including cost of evidence of title and attorney's fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which Beneficiary or Trustee may appear, and in any suit brought by Beneficiary to foreclose this Deed.
4) To pay: at least ten days before delinquency all taxes and assessments affecting said property, including assessments on appurtenant water stock; when due, all encumbrances, charges and liens, with interest, on said property or any part thereof, which appear to be prior or superior hereto; all costs, fees and expenses of this Trust.

Should Trustor fail to make any payment or to do any act as herein provided, then Beneficiary of Trustee, but without obligation so to do and without notice to or demand upon Trustor and without releasing Trustor from any obligation hereof, may: make or do the same is such manner and to such extent as either may deem necessary to protect the security hereof, Beneficiary or Trustee being authorized to enter upon said property for such purposes; appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security hereof or the rights or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; pay, purchase, contest or compromise any encumbrance, charge or lien which in the judgment of either appears to be prior or superior hereto; and, in exercising any such powers, pay necessary expenses, employ counsel and pay his reasonable fees. 5) To pay immediately and without demand all sums so expended by Beneficiary or Trustee, with interest from the date of expenditure at the amount allowed by law in effect at the date hereof, and to pay for any statement provided for by law in effect at the date hereof regarding the obligation secured hereby any amount demanded by the Beneficiary not to exceed the maximum allowed by law at the time when said statement is demanded.

B. It is mutually agreed:
1) That any award in connection with any condemnation for public use of or injury to said property or any part thereof is hereby assigned and shall be paid to Beneficiary who may apply or release such moneys received by him in the same manner and with the same effect as above provided for disposition of proceeds of fire or otherinsurance. 2) That by accepting payment of any sum secured hereby after its due date, Beneficiary does not waive his right either to require prompt payment when due of all other sums so secured or to declare default for failure so topay. 3) That at any time or from time to time, without liability therefor and without notice, upon written request of Beneficiary and presentation of this Deed and said note for endorsement, and without affecting the personal liability of any person for payment of the indebtedness secured hereby, Trustee may: reconvey any part of said property; consent to the making of any map or plat thereof; join in granting any easement thereon, or join in any extension agreement or any agreement subordinating the lien or charge hereof.
4) That upon written request of Beneficiary stating that all sums secured hereby have been paid, and upon surrender of this Deed and said note to Trustee for cancellation and retention or other disposition as Trustee in its sole discretion may choose and upon payment of its fees, Trustee shall reconvey, without warranty, the property then held hereunder. The recitals in such reconveyance of any matters or facts shall be conclusive proof of the truthfulness thereof. The Grantee in such reconveyance may be described as “the person or persons legally entitled thereto.”
5) That as additional security, Trustor hereby gives to and confers upon Beneficiary the right, power and authority, during the continuance of these Trusts, to collect the rents, issues and profits of said property, reserving unto Trustor the right, prior to any default by Trustor in payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the performance of any agreement hereunder, to collect and retain such rents, issues and profits as they become due and payable. Upon any such default, Beneficiary may at any time without notice, either in person, by agent, or be a receiver to be appointed by a court, and without regard to the adequacy of any security for the indebtedness hereby secured, enter upon and take possession of said property or any part thereof, in his own name sue for or otherwise collect such rents, issues, and profits, including those past due and unpaid, and apply the same, less costs and expenses of operation and collection, including reasonable attorney's fees, upon any indebtedness secured hereby, and in such order as Beneficiary may determine. The entering upon and taking possession of said property, the collecting of such rents, issues and profits and the application thereof as aforesaid, shall not cure or waive any default or notice of default hereunder or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice.
6) That upon default by Trustor in payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the performance of any agreement hereunder, Beneficiary may declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable by delivery to Trustee of written declaration of default and demand for sale and of written notice of default and of election to cause to be sold said property, which