Upland City Council
June 9, 2025

Villa Serena Specific Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
Exhibit 18
Primary Community Entry Elevation View .............................................................................4.7 Exhibit 19
Secondary Entry ..............................................................................................................................4.8 Exhibit 20
Streetscape Key Map .....................................................................................................................4.9 Exhibit 21
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.10 Exhibit 22
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.11 Exhibit 23
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.12 Exhibit 24
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.13 Exhibit 25
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.14 Exhibit 26
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.15 Exhibit 27
Streetscape Sections ...................................................................................................................4.16 Exhibit 28
Central Open Space Plan ...........................................................................................................4.18 Exhibit 29
Pocket Parks ...................................................................................................................................4.19 Exhibit 30
Pocket Parks ...................................................................................................................................4.20 Exhibit 31
Central Mailbox Plan ...................................................................................................................4.21 Exhibit 32
Open Space Amenities ...............................................................................................................4.22 Exhibit 33
Open Space Amenities ...............................................................................................................4.23 Exhibit 34
Open Space Amenities ...............................................................................................................4.24 Exhibit 35
Open Space Amenities ...............................................................................................................4.25

Villa Serena Specific Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
Exhibit 36
Wall and Fence Plan ....................................................................................................................4.27 Exhibit 37
Wall and Fence Plan ....................................................................................................................4.28 Exhibit 38
Basin Trail Fence Plan ..................................................................................................................4.29 Exhibit 39
Wall and Fence Details ...............................................................................................................4.30 Exhibit 40
Typical Street Light Fixture .......................................................................................................4.31 Exhibit 41
Spanish Style ..................................................................................................................................4.34 Exhibit 42
Italianate Style ...............................................................................................................................4.36 Exhibit 43
French Country Style ..................................................................................................................4.38 Exhibit 44
Architectural Enhancements Key Map .................................................................................4.40 Exhibit 45
Enhanced Elevation Spanish Style .........................................................................................4.41 Exhibit 46
Enhanced Elevation French Country Style ..........................................................................4.42 Exhibit 47
Enhanced Elevation Italianate Style ......................................................................................4.43

1.1 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Section 1. Introduction

1.1 Project Overview
The Villa Serena Specific Plan (Specific Plan)
is a proposal by The Colonies Partners, L.P.
(Applicant) to develop a gated residential com-
munity on approximately 9.16 gross acres owned
by the applicant (Project Site) and to improve
approximately .78 additional acres off-site adja-
cent to the Project Site for open space and cir-
culation purposes in the City of Upland. The
Project Site is generally located north of 15th
Street and east of North Campus Avenue as il-
lustrated in Exhibit 1, “Regional Context Map”
and as further described in the “Project Vicinity
Map,” Exhibit 2.

The Project Site is an infill site with single family
residential uses adjacent to the Project Site on
the south, west, and southeast, and the Upland
Hills Country Club and residential commu-
nity adjacent to the Project Site to the north.

An existing flood control basin is located adja-
cent to the Project Site to the east. A Southern
California Edison substation is located in prox-
imity to the Project Site on the northwest. A rec-
reational vehicle storage yard is located to the
southwest of the Project Site. The Specific Plan
is a comprehensive plan for development of 65
single family detached residential units at a den-
sity of 7.10 dwelling units per acre and on-site
active and passive recreational amenities within
common open space areas. The Specific Plan
also includes a plan for the extension of existing
15th Street improvements from the Project Site
westerly to the terminus of East 15th Street pro-
viding a private access roadway and entry to the
Project as well as construction of off-site public
open space improvements.

The new community planned as part of the
Specific Plan incorporates the traditional hous-
ing styles of Upland, California, while also re-
flecting the architecture of recently built neigh-
borhoods. The architectural styles of the Specific
Plan are influenced and inspired by Spanish,
Italianate, and French Country that echo the
classic architecture of the Southern Californian
regions. The Specific Plan integrates styles, ele-
ments, and a mix of materials from both estab-
lished and newer residential communities locat-
ed near the Project Site. The use of Spanish roof
tiles, gable end details, and delicate metal rails
reflects the classic Spanish style of the histori-
cal Upland communities. Similarly, the vertical
corner details, symmetry, and arched openings of
the Italianate style, and the corbels, stone siding,
and steep roof pitches of the French Country
architectural style, capture the details of the past
and present styles of Upland homes. The new
homes planned within the Project Site are de-
signed to reflect the massing and scale of existing
neighboring homes by using similar proportions,
heights, and footprints allowing for the new
community to comfortably blend with the exist-
ing neighborhood and the community at large.

Construction of new Project roadways and in-
frastructure is planned to connect to existing
facilities located adjacent to the Project Site. The
proposed plan reduces the need for construction
of additional arterial and major roadway im-
provements to serve the Project Site.

The proximity of the Project Site within walk-
ing and biking distance to existing recreation-
al and commercial facilities can help to reduce
automobile trips to and from the Project Site.

The Project provides pedestrian and bicycle con-
nectivity to a nearby Sierra Vista Park, located
approximately .5 miles southwest of the Project
Site to Upland Memorial Park located approxi-
mately .8 miles south of the Project Site and to
the existing public trail located along the rim
of a flood control basin located adjacent to the
Project Site on the east. Commercial services
within biking distance from the Project Site are
located within one mile of the Project Site at the
Colonies Crossroads Center located at North
Campus Avenue and 19th Street. This regional

Villa Serena Specific Plan1.2
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Source: Google MapsExhibit 1
Regional Context Map N
ProjectLocationSierra Vista Park
Upland Memorial Park

Villa Serena Specific Plan 1.3
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
N
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity Map
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc./Google Maps

1.4 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan

1.3 Purpose and Authority

1.3.1 Purpose
The Villa Serena Specific Plan implements a
General Plan Amendment changing the General
Plan Land Use Map for the Project Site from
Public Flood Control/Recharge (FC/R) to Villa
Serena Specific Plan (SP), allowing residential
land use development at a density of 7.10 dwell-
ing units per acre consistent with surrounding
residential single family low (SFR-L) and single
family medium (SFR-M) development locat-
ed adjacent to the Project Site. Adoption by the
City of the Specific Plan by ordinance changes
the City’s Zoning Map for the Project Site from
Public (PB-FC) to “Villa Serena Specific Plan."
The adoption of the Villa Serena Specific Plan
(Specific Plan) implements the General Plan
land use designation of SP through the establish-
ment of site specific zoning regulations for the
development of the Project Site.

The Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan for
development of residential and open space land
uses and infrastructure improvements to serve
the development. The Specific Plan establishes
the development regulations and design criteria
for development of the Project. The Specific Plan
also establishes the procedures and requirements
enabling City review and approval of develop-
ment the Project thereby ensuring that the City’s
General Plan, as amended for the Project Site, is
implemented.
commercial center offers residents a supermar-
ket, restaurants, personal services, entertainment,
and home goods for residents in the vicinity.

The Specific Plan is designed to create a distinc-
tive sense of place for residents in a gated com-
munity with a pedestrian and bicycle friend-
ly street system creating an atmosphere where
neighbors can visit with one another while walk-
ing throughout the community. Common area
open space within the community offers active
and passive recreational amenities for residents
and a community gathering place for residents.

Homes are planned to front onto streets, en-
abling residents to have their “eyes on the street,”
promoting a safe hometown feel and encourag-
ing interaction among neighbors.

1.2 Project Setting
The physical setting of the Project Site is il-
lustrated on Exhibit 3, "Project Setting." The
Project Site comprises a portion of an approx-
imately 20 acre flood control detention basin.

The City of Upland has determined a 9.16 acre
portion of the flood control detention basin,
comprising the Project Site, to be a surplus
parcel suitable for development of residential
uses with the remaining approximately 11 acres
of the flood control detention basin to be ad-
equate for continued flood control operations
pursuant to completion of modifications to
portions of the basin as part of the Project. As
part of the Project, access for flood control de-
tention basin maintenance vehicles is provided
through the Project Site with a gated entry to the
basin located at the easterly edge of the Project
boundary.

Villa Serena Specific Plan 1.5
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc./Google MapsExhibit 3
Project Setting N

1.6 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan
• Create a strong sense of arrival into the
Project Site through an enhanced community
entry.
• Provide for on-site recreational opportunities
for residents through provision of common
area open space within the community offer-
ing active and passive recreational amenities
for all age groups.
• Provide for public off-site recreational oppor-
tunities through the development of passive
open space.

Objective 2:

Design a development plan which ensures the
community is adequately served by public fa-
cilities, infrastructure, and utilities without the
need for extensions or improvements to existing
public facilities through the following measures:
• Provide for a simple two way private street
system connecting to an existing public
arterial roadway, and minimize points of
access to existing roadways.
• Provide for a pedestrian and bicycle friend-
ly circulation system providing connectivi-
ty within the community and connecting to
15th Street where pedestrians and bicyclists
can access existing public streets, trails, and
sidewalks.
• Provide for adequate storm water collection
within the Project Site to contain on-site and
off-site flows affecting the property.
• Provide for adequate wastewater facilities on-
site and ensure that adequate capacity is avail-
able within existing public sewer facilities to
serve the Project Site.
• Provide on-site facilities for water quality
treatment and ground water replenishment.
• Participate in payment of appropriate
Development Impact Fees to accommodate
the public service needs generated by the
community.

1.3.2 Authority of the Specific Plan
State of California Government Code, Title 7,
Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450-
57, grants authority to cities to adopt spe-
cific plans for purposes of implementing the
goals and policies of their general plans. The
Government Code specifies that specific plans
may be adopted either by resolution or by ordi-
nance and that the specific plan must be con-
sistent with the general plan. The Government
Code sets forth the minimum requirements and
review procedures for specific plans including
provision of a land use plan, an infrastructure
and public services plan, criteria and standards
for development, and implementation measures.

The Government Code also states that specific
plans may address any other subjects which, in
the judgment of the city, are necessary or desir-
able for implementation of the general plan.

1.4 Objectives
The Specific Plan addresses the following plan-
ning and design objectives to ensure that de-
velopment of the Project Site is consistent with
the City’s General Plan, as amended, and serves
as a foundation for the design of a residen-
tial community which provides a sense of place
for residents and responds to the existing sur-
rounding built environment. Consistency of
the Project with the General Plan is discussed
in Section 6,"General Plan Consistency," of the
Specific Plan.

Objective 1:

Foster a sense of community and promote a uni-
fied and cohesive neighborhood environment
through the following design measures:
• Create a distinctive community design with
a well designed entry, streetscapes, walls, and
entry monument.
• Provide for architectural diversity within the
community with varying residential floor
plans and architectural styles.

1.7 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan

1.5 Project Summary
The Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan for the
development of up to 65 single family detached
residential dwelling units designed around a pri-
vate two way street system with pedestrian walk-
ways linking residences to on-site common area
open space and to existing adjacent roadways
connecting to existing nearby recreational ame-
nities and commercial services. The Project street
system provides walking and biking connectivity
from the Project Site to 15th Street enabling res-
idents to walk or bike to the nearby Sierra Vista
Park located approximately .5 miles southwest of
the Project Site, Upland Memorial Park located
approximately .8 miles south of the Project Site
and the Colonies Crossroads commercial center
located north of the Project Site.

1.5.1 Residential
Sixty five single family detached residential
dwellings are planned at a density of 7.10 dwell-
ing units per acre designed in a variety of styles
and floor plans. The Project incorporates three
distinctive architectural styles for homes in-
fluenced and inspired by Spanish, Italianate,
and French Country architecture as depicted
in Section 4.6 “Architectural Design.” Private
streets within the Project provide access to res-
idential dwellings. All residential dwellings are
planned as street fronting units.

1.5.2 Open Space
The Project includes provision of approximate-
ly 1.02 acres of private on-site common area
open space distributed throughout the com-
munity. On-site common area open space in-
cludes a .23 acre recreational area to include a
swimming pool, a pool house with restrooms,
and barbeque and picnic areas. Five individu-
al pocket parks totaling .79 acres are planned
for passive recreational use by residents. Pocket
parks will include shady landscaped areas with
benches, picnic tables, a putting green, children's
Objective 3:

Incorporate the following green and sustainable
design features into the development plan.
• Design homes with opportunities for remote
working allowing people to work from home
reducing driving time and vehicle emissions.
• Incorporate native plant materials and/or
drought tolerant plant materials within the
landscaping of public spaces, and encourage
homeowners to utilize drought tolerant plant
materials in private yard areas.
• Design homes with currently available tech-
nology for internet access allowing residents
to shop and work on-line, helping to reduce
vehicle trips to employment centers and
shopping.
• Incorporate passive solar design and energy ef-
ficient construction materials and techniques
into residential design such as cool roofs, dual
pane windows, increased insulation to mini-
mize heat transfer and thermal bridging, and
roofs designed to accommodate homeown-
er installation of solar panels to help reduce
energy demand.
• Implement “dark sky friendly” outdoor light-
ing within streets and common area open
space.
• Provide for a plant palette which includes
canopy trees to achieve natural ventilation
and cooling and use of water conserving land-
scape plant materials and irrigation systems.
• Provide for a landscape and irrigation plan
consistent with Upland Municipal Code
Chapter 17.12 (Landscaping) and the State
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(23 C.C.R § 490 et seq.)

1.8 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan
part of the Project, site improvements, as de-
scribed in Section 2, “Development Plan,” will
be made to the entire Upland Basin flood con-
trol and detention basin to create the Project
Site suitable for residential development and to
ensure the downstream flows to the basin are not
impacted.

1.6 Governing Documents
The adoption of the Specific Plan is the first step
in a process leading to the development of the
Project. The development of the Project is gov-
erned by the following documents.

1.6.1 General Plan
California Government Code (Title 7,
Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450-
65457, permits the adoption and administra-
tion of a specific plan as an implementation tool
for elements contained in the local general plan.

Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in
regulations, guidelines, and programs with the
goals and policies set forth in the general plan.

In September 2015 the City adopted the “City
of Upland General Plan” which sets forth the
following topics to address the state mandated
general plan elements:
• Land Use
• Circulation
• Housing
• Open Space and Conservation
• Safety (which includes the state mandated
Noise Element)
In addition to the state mandated elements, the
City of Upland General Plan includes the fol-
lowing elements:
• Focus Areas
• Community Character and Urban Design
• Economic Sustainability
• Healthy Community
play areas, and a trail connecting the community
to the existing basin trail adjacent to the Project
Site.

Off-site public open space improvements include
a .15 acre park adjacent to the Project Site acces-
sible from 15th Street.

1.5.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity
The Project includes a private two way street
system with sidewalks on both sides of the street
providing pedestrian connectivity as well as bicy-
cle accessibility throughout the Project. The con-
nection of the Project street and walkway system
to 15th Street provides for on-street bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity within the community
and connectivity to commercial services located
at North Campus Avenue and 19th Street, ap-
proximately one mile to the north of the Project
Site, and to Sierra Vista Park, approximately .5
miles southwest of the Project Site and Upland
Memorial Park located approximately .8 miles
south of the Project Site. Private pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity through the community to
open space is provided through the on-site street
system and a private pocket park trail extending
through the Project connecting to the existing
adjacent public basin trail. Public bicycle and pe-
destrian access to the off-site basin trail is pro-
vided within a separate trail extending from 15th
Street to the public basin trail.

1.5.4 Infrastructure
The Specific Plan proposes new on-site road-
ways, water mains, sewer mains, and drain-
age facilities designed to connect to 15th Street
and existing public facilities located within 15th
Street. As part of the Project, an unimproved
portion of 15th Street right of way between
Fernando Avenue and the terminus of East 15th
Street to the west will be completed provid-
ing access to the residential component of the
Project. Expansion of existing infrastructure fa-
cilities is not necessary to serve the Project. As

1.9 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan

1.6.4 Development Plan Review
Applicable provisions of Upland Municipal
Code, Title 17, (Planning and Zoning) Section

17.44.030 (Development Plan Review) shall
apply to the review and approval of the site de-
velopment plans for the proposed Project.

1.6.5 Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) approved by the City serve to ensure
and enforce quality design of the Project over the
long term and the continued uniform mainte-
nance of streets, common areas, and street and
common area landscaping.

1.7 CEQA Compliance
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pre-
pared by the City of Upland for the Project in
accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and City requirements
considers the potential environmental impacts
of all Project related activities and the discre-
tionary and ministerial applications associated
with implementation of the Project. The EIR
includes mitigation measures and a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
in order to ensure that any potential significant
impacts of the Project on the environment be re-
duced to a less than significant level.

1.8 Specific Plan Components
The Specific Plan is organized into the following
sections in addition to Section 1, “Introduction.”
Section 2 - Development Plan
This section describes the physical setting for
the Project Site outlining the existing physical
conditions found within and surrounding the
Project Site, the Project land use plan describing
residential and open space land use areas of the
Project, and the on- site and off site infrastruc-
ture and open space improvements as part of the
the Project.

The Villa Serena Specific Plan implements a
General Plan Amendment changing the General
Plan Land Use Map for the Project Site from
Public Flood Control/Recharge (FC/R) to Villa
Serena Specific Plan (SP) allowing residential
land use development at a density of 7.10 dwell-
ing units per acre. The Specific Plan is consistent
with applicable goals, objectives, and policies of
the Upland General Plan, as amended, pertain-
ing to the planned development as described in
Section 6, “General Plan Consistency.”

1.6.2 Specific Plan
The Specific Plan serves as the legal document to
implement the General Plan land use designa-
tion for the Project Site of Villa Serena Specific
Plan (SP) and provides the zoning for develop-
ment of the Project Site as a residential commu-
nity at a density of 7.10 dwelling units per acre.

The Specific Plan establishes land use and devel-
opment regulations designed to govern devel-
opment of the Project. In instances where the
Specific Plan is silent, regarding a specific devel-
opment standard or procedure for implementing
the Specific Plan, the Upland Municipal Code
Zoning Code Title 17, (Planning and Zoning)
shall prevail. The Specific Plan provides a “blue-
print” for development of the Project establish-
ing permitted uses, a land use plan, the develop-
ment requirements, and design criteria for land
development as set forth herein.

1.6.3 Subdivision Maps
Approval of a tentative and final tract map is re-
quired for the development of the Project. The
subdivision map for the Project shall be prepared
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the State
of California Subdivision Map Act (Government
Code Section 66410 through 66499), the
City of Upland Municipal Code, Title 16,
“Subdivisions,” and consistent with the applica-
ble provisions of the Specific Plan.

1.10 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Section 3 - Development Regulations
This section establishes the allowable land use
within the Project Site and standards and re-
quirements for development of all land uses
within the Project Site.

Section 4 - Design Criteria
The Design Criteria establishes the architectur-
al and landscape design requirements for the
Project to ensure that a cohesive community of
distinctive design quality, definitive architecture,
and comprehensive landscaping is achieved.

Section 5 - Implementation
The policies and procedures for the adminis-
tration of the Specific Plan, procedures for the
review and approval by the City of specific devel-
opment proposals within the Project Site, Project
financing, and Project maintenance responsibili-
ties within the development are described in this
section.

Section 6 - General Plan Consistency
The relationship of the Specific Plan to the appli-
cable policies of the Upland General Plan is dis-
cussed in this Section.

2.1 SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Section 2. Development Plan
The Specific Plan is a proposal for development
of a planned residential community within an
existing urban setting on approximately 9.16
gross acres in the City of Upland. The Specific
Plan also addresses the proposed development
of adjacent off-site open space and circulation
improvements planned as part of the Project.

This section describes the land use plan and the
plan for infrastructure and public services for the
community.

2.1 Land Use
The proposed development of the Project is
depicted on Exhibit 4, “Land Use Plan” and
is further described in Table 2.1, “Statistical
Summary.” The Project is designed to respond
to both on-site and off-site conditions, as well as
anticipated market conditions. The Specific Plan
ensures that a strong community identity is es-
tablished for residents and visitors through a co-
hesive plan for residential and open space areas.

Table 2.1
Statistical Summary
Land Use Project Site Acres
Off-Site Development Acres
Residential 5.4
Landscaped
Buffer .50
Common Area
Open Space 1.02 .15
Private Streets 2.22
15th Street ROW .02
Access Roadway
and Project Entry .63
Total Gross Acres 9.16 .78
Total Dwelling Units: 65
Residential Density: 7.10 du/acre
(65 dus ÷ 9.16 ac = 7.10 du/ac)

2.1.1 Residential Use
Approximately 5.4 acres of the Project Site are
planned for development of 65 single family de-
tached residential dwelling units.
a. Residential Design.

Residential dwellings shall be designed to
front onto private streets with floor plans de-
signed to present an “architecture forward”
image so that the residence and not the garage
is the predominant view from the street.

Residential design incorporates human-scale
details to promote a pedestrian friendly char-
acter for the community. Such details include
the use of enhanced entries, a mix of materi-
als and textures, and authentic detailing on el-
ements such as windows, porches, doors, and
lighting.
b. Community Design.

The Specific Plan offers a strong community
identity for residents and visitors through a
unified approach to site design, architecture,
and landscape design elements. The land-
scaped private street and street adjacent walk-
ways link residences to common area open
space encouraging neighborly interaction.

2.1.2 Open Space Use
Approximately 1.02 acres of private common
area open space is provided as part of the Project
to include a .23 acre recreational area with a
pool, pool house with restrooms, and separate
pocket park areas improved with picnic tables,
barbecue facilities, exercise station, children’s
play area, a putting green, and five informal
pocket parks totaling .79 acres. The pocket parks
are located throughout the Project Site, accessi-
ble from sidewalks, and will be improved with
landscaping, children's play equipment, exercise
equipment and benches. One of the five on-site
pocket parks is planned with a private trail pro-
viding pedestrian and bicycle connectivity for
residents to the basin open space area adjacent to
the Project Site on the east.

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.2
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.Exhibit 4
Land Use Plan

2.3 SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Villa Serena Specific Plan
area, a new 5 foot sidewalk and an 8 foot wide
landscaped parkway within the existing right of
way adjacent to the Project Site. Primary vehic-
ular access to and from the Project Site will be
provided from an extension of 15th Street from
the Project Site westerly to the terminus of East
15th Street. Improvements to this segment of
15th Street will include 26 feet of paved travel
area with a retaining wall and curb on the north
side of the street and a 5 foot 5 inch street adja-
cent sidewalk and wedge curb on the south side.

The existing right of way for 15th Street and
proposed project improvements for 15th Street
are illustrated on Exhibits 6 and 7, "Street Cross
Sections.”

2.2.2 Project Streets
On-site Project circulation is provided by means
of a private two way street with a paved travel
area varying in width from 26 to 38 feet with ad-
jacent wedge curbs. On-street parking is permit-
ted in designated segments of the street. A 5 foot
wide street adjacent sidewalk is provided on
both sides of the street where homes front both
sides of the street. In instances where the sides
of homes are also adjacent to the street a 5 foot
wide adjacent sidewalk is provided on the same
side of the street. Where the centrally located
common area open space fronts the street on
one side and residential units front the street
on the opposite side a sidewalk is provided on
both sides of the street. Emergency vehicle access
is provided at both project entries along 15th
Street. The street improvements for the Project
are illustrated on Exhibits 6 and 7, “Street Cross
Sections.”
One off-site .15 acre pocket park is planned ad-
jacent to the southern boundary of the Project
Site accessible to the public from 15th Street and
Fernando Avenue. This park will provide open
play areas and bench seating.

2.2 Circulation
Access for residents to the Project Site is provid-
ed from two locations. A primary gated com-
munity entry for the Project is located west of
the Project Site boundary as part of a planned
off-site extension of approximately .63 acres of
an unimproved portion of 15th Street. A second
gated access point is provided from 15th Street
at the westerly boundary of the Project Site pro-
viding exiting only for residents and emergen-
cy vehicle entry and exiting. An internal pri-
vate two way street system provides primary
circulation within the Project Site serving res-
idential dwellings and the common area open
space. Maintenance crews serving the remain-
ing Upland Basin flood control and detention
basin are provided vehicular access to the west-
erly boundary of the basin through the Project
within the internal street system. A service road
and gate are located at the easterly boundary
of the Project Site for maintenance vehicles to
access the basin. The Project provides for pedes-
trian and bicycle access to the existing trail lo-
cated within the basin. All streets are planned as
private roadways.

The circulation system serving the Specific Plan
is illustrated on Exhibit 5, “Master Plan of
Circulation.”

2.2.1 15th Street
Ultimate right of way improvements for 15th
Street adjacent to the Project Site include 40
feet of paved travel area with a 5 foot wide side-
walk and an 8 foot wide landscaped parkway
on each side of 15th Street for a total right of
way of 66 feet. As part of the Project the devel-
oper will construct an additional 8 feet of travel

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.4
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 5
Master Plan of Circulation
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

Villa Serena Specific Plan 2.5
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.Exhibit 6
Street Cross Sections

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.6
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 7
Street Cross Sections
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

2.7 SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Villa Serena Specific Plan

2.3.2 Sanitary Sewer
Sewer service to the Project Site is provided by
the City of Upland. Existing off-site sewer fa-
cilities available to serve the Project Site include
an existing 8 inch diameter sewer main locat-
ed in 15th Street adjacent to the Project Site.

Development of the Project Site includes con-
struction of an on-site network of new 8 inch
sewer mains and the relocation of one existing
8 inch off-site sewer main connecting to the on-
site system. Exhibit 10, “Sewer Master Plan,”
illustrates the planned sewer system to serve the
Project.

2.2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility
The Project street system includes provision of
street adjacent sidewalks for pedestrian mobil-
ity within the community. The Project street
system allows for on street bicycle mobility. The
Project street and sidewalk system connects to
15th Street where bicyclists and pedestrians can
continue on existing City streets and sidewalks
to Sierra Vista Park located to the south of the
Project Site and Upland Memorial Park located
to the southwest of the Project Site, and to gen-
eral retail commercial services located at North
Campus Avenue and 19th Street, approximately
one mile north of the Project Site. Connectivity
is provided to the adjacent Upland Basin open
space via a planned on-site private pedestrian
trail and a separate public pedestrian and bicy-
cle trail extending from Project streets and 15th
Street connecting to an existing off-site public
trail within the basin. The Project pedestrian and
bicycle mobility plan is illustrated in Exhibit 8,
“Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility.”

2.3 Infrastructure and
Public Services

2.3.1 Water
The City of Upland Water Department provides
water service to the City of Upland. Water ser-
vice to the Project Site is provided via an exist-
ing 10 inch diameter water main located in 15th
Street. The development of the Project includes
construction of a network of 8 inch diameter
on-site water mains adequate to provide for the
domestic and fire protection water requirements
of the Project. Exhibit 9, “Water Master Plan”
illustrates the proposed water system to serve the
Project.

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.8
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 8
Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 2.9
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 9
Water Master Plan
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.10
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 10
Sewer Master Plan
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

2.11 SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Villa Serena Specific Plan

2.4 Public Utilities

2.4.1 Telephone and Cable
Verizon will provide telephone service to the
Project Site. Proposed on-site facilities will be
placed underground.

2.4.2 Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (Gas
Company) will provide natural gas to the Project
Site. Gas mains will be installed to the Project
Site by the Gas Company as necessary.

2.4.3 Electricity
Southern California Edison will provide electric-
ity to the Project Site from existing facilities in
the vicinity of the Project Site. Proposed new fa-
cilities to serve the Project will be owned and op-
erated by Southern California Edison and locat-
ed underground.

2.4.4 Solid Waste
The City of Upland contracts with Burrtec
Waste Industries (BWI), a private refuse hauler,
to provide solid waste collection services for the
City. Refuse service will be provided by BWI for
the Project.

2.4.5 Schools
School facilities will be provided by the Upland
Unified School District. The Project will be re-
quired to pay school fees in accordance with
Government Code Section 65995 of the State of
California.

2.3.3 Storm Drain and Water Quality Management
The existing drainage pattern for the Project Site
generally drains from east to west as part of a re-
gional detention basin consisting of an essential-
ly flat bottom, with 3:1 side slopes.

2.3.3.1 Drainage
The proposed drainage plan for the Project will
drain the single family lots and streets into a
storm drain collection system on site, which in-
cludes street flow. Runoff will then be passed
through an underground infiltration basin
and outlet into a new 12-foot by 8-foot rein-
forced concrete box culvert which outlets into
the detention basin. Modifications to the exist-
ing flood control and detention basin as part of
the Project are discussed in Section 2.5, "Basin
Modifications and Site Preparation."

2.3.3.2 Water Quality
The Project provides for storm water retention
and infiltration on the Project Site to mitigate
an 85th percentile storm. This is accomplished
by passing the on-site runoff through a contin-
uous deflection separator (CDS) unit for pre-
treatment and then an underground infiltration
basin to infiltrate runoff from the majority of the
site. The underground infiltration basin is pro-
posed to be 23’ x 123’ and will have dual 72”
perforated pipes encased in gravel. In addition,
two bioretention treatment systems designed
to treat storm water are proposed, one located
at each project entry, to treat on-site areas that
are not tributary to the underground basin. The
biotreatment systems proposed for use within
the Project Site are trademarked as "Modular
Wetland Systems." Detailed information on
these systems can be found on the company
website at biocleanenviornmental.com.

Exhibit 11, “Storm Drain Master Plan,” illus-
trates the proposed storm drain and water quali-
ty management system to serve the Project Site.

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.12
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 11
Storm Drain Master Plan
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

2.13 SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Villa Serena Specific Plan
storm drain improvements will consist of a
combination of 12’x8’ and 10’x9.5’ RCBs.

The improvements will extend approximately
1900 LF from west to east along the southern
edge of the Project Site and outlet through
a new headwall in the modified basin. The
modified inlet will also pick up two existing
smaller inlets tributary to the basin within the
proposed Project Site as described below.
• An existing local inlet pipe located approxi-
mately 300’ east of the Project Site’s easter-
ly boundary is anticipated to be a 36” RCP
routed through the Project Site to the new
inlet RCB.
• An existing concrete trapezoidal channel
located approximately 60’ west of the east-
ern edge of the Project Site will be picked
up in an approximately 48” diameter pipe
and routed through the Project Site into
the new inlet RCB.
b. Extension of approximately 1,800 linear feet
of the basin outlet from the western edge
of the Project Site to the eastern edge of the
Project Site. This extension is proposed to be a
102” RCP to account for the design outlet as
well as the spillway flows and includes a new
outlet structure in the basin. The proposed
pipe will extend from the southeast corner
of the Project Site westerly to the proposed
Project main entry, then south into 15th
Street and west along 15th Street connecting
to the existing outlet pipe. Easements will be
granted to the City of Upland for all basin in-
frastructure proposed to be located within the
Project Site.

2.5 Basin Modifications and
Project Grading
The existing Project Site comprises 9.16 acres of
an existing approximately 20 acre flood control
and detention basin. The existing ground slopes
are predominantly flat grades with less than

0.5% slope at the bottom of the basin, then gen-
erally sloping from east to west with 3:1 slopes
that make up the basin sides.

As part of the Project, modifications will be
made to the existing basin to create the 9.16-
acre Project Site. The conceptual plan for the
basin modifications is illustrated in Exhibit 12,
"Conceptual Basin Modification Plan" and is
described below.

In 2017, the consulting firm of Madole and
Associates, Inc. prepared a Drainage Study in the
City of Upland for the 15th Street Basin. The
intent of this study was to “determine if the cur-
rent basin has excess capacity, which could lead
to the reduction in area of the basin and allow
for “surplus” property for development.” Based
on the analysis, the study determined that a sur-
plus parcel of 9.16 acres, located on the wester-
ly end of the existing basin could be created, and
that the remaining basin area of approximate-
ly 11 acres would be sufficient for flood con-
trol operations without demonstrably impacting
downstream facilities. The limits of the proposed
Project Site are based on the recommendations
in the Madole Report which includes require-
ments for relocation of existing basin infrastruc-
ture, reconfiguration of the basin itself by filling
in the 9.16-acre development portion, reconfig-
uration of the remaining approximately 11 acres
making the bottom of the basin deeper, and
modification of the inlet/outlet structures. The
recommended improvements to be made are de-
scribed below.
a. Extension of the basin inlet, located in the
northwest corner of the existing basin, to the
new eastern edge of the Project Site. New

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.14
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 12
Conceptual Basin Modification Plan
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

N

2.15 SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Modifications to the bottom of the existing basin
will be made from the toe of the new slope to a
point approximately 900 linear feet to the east,
by grading the bottom of the basin in this area
to an elevation of approximately 1,410 feet from
an existing elevation of 1,414 to 1,415 feet. The
excess cut material generated can be utilized as
fill for the proposed new berm located at the
westerly edge of the new basin as well as for fill
within the proposed Project Site. The remainder
of the existing basin will be untouched by the
Project. Total earthwork for the Project is esti-
mated to be approximately 46,000 cubic yards
of cut, and 87,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in
import of roughly 41,000 cubic yards.

The grading operation for the Project Site itself
will generally consist of demolition, clearing,
grubbing, and moving of surface soils to con-
struct streets, building pads, and driveways.

Grading within the Project Site will attempt to
balance cut/fills for the site.

Grading plans for the Project will be reviewed
and approved by the City of Upland Land
Development and Transportation Division of the
Public Works Department prior to the issuance
of grading permits. All grading plans and activ-
ities will conform to the City grading ordinance
and dust and erosion control requirements. The
conceptual grading plan for the Project Site is
illustrated in Exhibit 13, “Conceptual Grading
Plan” and in Exhibit 14, “Conceptual Grading
Plan Cross Sections.”

2.6 Fire Safety
The Project will incorporate measures for fire
safety to include construction of emergency ve-
hicle access entries from 15th Street, new fire
hydrants, and designation of restricted red curb
areas as part of Project implementation. The plan
for the provision of fire protection improvements
is illustrated in Exhibit 15, “Fire Safety Plan.”
County of San Bernardino policies require de-
tention basins to have spillways designed to
handle the fully developed 1,000-year storm
peak flow rate defined as 135% of the 100-
year storm or the peak flow rate required by the
State's Division of Safety of Dams, whichever is
greater. Spillways must be properly connected to
a storm drain, drainage channel, street, or estab-
lished watercourse.

As part of the basin modifications proposed as
part of the Project three spillway structures are
proposed which collectively will enable the pas-
sage of a 1,000-year storm event.
• A reinforced concrete inlet box, connecting to
a proposed 84-inch outlet storm drain.
• A proposed reinforced concrete broad-crest-
ed weir to be located at the southwest corner
of the detention basin with a bottom width
of 60-feet, designed to outlet into a proposed
graded drainage channel running east to west
along the southern edge of the Villa Serena
project and onto 15th Street.
• A proposed reinforced concrete broad-crested
weir to be located along the southern edge of
the detention basin immediately north of the
terminus of Grove Street with a bottom width
of 40-feet, which outlets onto Grove Street.

The combined capacity of these three spillway
structures in the detention basin proposed as
part of the Project will meet the county’s crite-
ria to allow the passage of the 1,000-year storm
event.

A portion of the remaining approximately 11
acres proposed for the modified basin will be
graded to create a new basin footprint filling the
western edge of the basin located at the easter-
ly boundary of the Project Site and creating a
new berm between the basin and Project Site.

From the top of the berm, a new slope will be
graded to the bottom of the basin proposed to
be at an approximate elevation of 1,410 feet.

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.16
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 13
Conceptual Grading Plan
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

Villa Serena Specific Plan 2.17
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.Exhibit 14
Conceptual Grading Plan Cross Sections

Villa Serena Specific Plan2.18
SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 15
Fire Safety Plan
Source: Madole & Associates, Inc.

3.1 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Section 3. Development
Regulations

3.1 Introduction
The provisions contained herein shall regulate
design and development within the Project Site.

These regulations establish the minimum stan-
dards and requirements for development of resi-
dential uses, common area open space, landscap-
ing, fences, walls, signage and lighting within the
Project Site.

3.2 Definition of Terms
The meaning and construction of words, phras-
es, titles, and terms shall be the same as provided
in Upland Municipal Code Title 17, “Planning
and Zoning,” (Zoning Code) Chapter 7
(Definitions) unless otherwise specifically pro-
vided for herein.

3.3 Applicability
The Specific Plan serves to implement the City’s
General Plan and establishes the zoning regula-
tions for the Project Site. These Development
Regulations address general requirements, per-
mitted uses, and development standards for all
development within the Project Site. Application
of these Development Regulations is intended to
encourage the most appropriate use of the land,
ensure the highest quality of development, and
protect the public health, safety, and general wel-
fare. Whenever the provisions and development
standards contained herein conflict with those
contained in the Zoning Code, the provisions of
the Specific Plan shall take precedence. Where
the Specific Plan is silent, the Zoning Code shall
apply. These Development Regulations shall re-
inforce specific site, architectural, and landscape
design criteria contained in Section 4, “Design
Criteria” of the Specific Plan. All architectural
and landscape improvements shall comply with
Section 4, “Design Criteria” of the Specific Plan.

3.4 General Site Development
Standards
The following general site development stan-
dards shall apply to all development within the
Project Site.
a. Maximum Number of Dwelling Units –
A maximum of 65 residential dwelling units is
permitted for development within the Project
Site.
b. Common Area Open Space – A minimum
of 42,000 square feet of private common
area open space shall be provided within the
Project Site for recreational use by Project res-
idents. An additional .15 acres off-site shall
be improved as part of the Project for public
open space.
c. Grading – Development within the Project
Site shall utilize grading techniques as ap-
proved by the City of Upland. Grading con-
cepts shall respond to the design criteria in-
cluded in the Specific Plan.
d. Building Modification – Residential build-
ing additions and/or alterations permitted by
the Specific Plan shall match the architectural
style of the primary dwelling unit and shall be
constructed of the same materials, details, and
colors as the primary dwelling unit.
e. Utilities – All new and existing public utility
distribution lines of 34.5 kV or less shall be
subsurface throughout the project.

3.5 Green and Sustainable
Development Standards
The following green and sustainable develop-
ment standards shall apply to development
within the Project Site.
a. Technology – All homes shall be equipped
with modern telecommunications technology
for computer internet access, phone, fax, and
television. Fiber optics cable shall be installed

3.2 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Villa Serena Specific Plan
purchase of homes and again thereafter on an
annual basis.
e. During Project construction the developer
shall use clean-burning diesel fuel, biodiesel
fuel, and/or other alternative fuels for heavy
construction equipment to reduce construc-
tion emissions. During Project construction,
the developer shall use locally produced and/
or manufactured building materials (materials
that are obtained from sources using the least
amount of transport) for at least 10 percent of
the construction materials used, shall recycle
or reuse at least 50 percent of the demolished
and/or grubbed construction materials, and
use “Green Building Materials,” such as those
that are resource efficient and are recycled and
manufactured for at least 10 percent of the
Project.
f. Drought-tolerant and/or native landscap-
ing materials shall be used in all public and
common areas to reduce water consumption.
g. Smart Controller irrigation systems shall
be installed in all public and common area
landscaping.
h. Landscape areas shall be designed on a “hydro
zone” basis to group plants according to their
water and sun requirements.

3.6 Permitted Uses and Structures
The following uses and structures are permitted
“by right” within the Specific Plan subject to ap-
proval by the City of Development Plan Review
pursuant to Zoning Code Section 17.44.030
(Development Plan Review). Any proposed use
not specifically listed is not permitted unless the
Development Services Director finds that the
proposed use is equivalent to a listed permitted
use and is permitted pursuant to the procedures
established in Zoning Code Section 17.02.020
(Authority) “Unlisted Land Uses.” Short term
rental units (STRs) and Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) are prohibited uses within the
Specific Plan.
to all the properties if available from the utili-
ty provider.
b. Energy Efficiency - All homes shall be con-
structed to meet or exceed the California
Building Code Title 24 energy standard.

Energy efficient design techniques include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• Increased insulation to minimize heat
transfer and thermal bridging.
• Roof orientations and design to accom-
modate homeowner installation of rooftop
solar electric equipment.
• Heating and cooling distribution systems
that limit air leakage throughout the struc-
ture to minimize energy consumption.
• Installation of ENERGY STAR or better
rated windows, space heating and cooling
equipment, light fixtures, appliances, and
other applicable electrical equipment.
• Installation of efficient lighting and light-
ing control systems and a building design
which utilizes daylight as an integral part
of the lighting system.
• Installation of “cool roofs” and cool
pavements.
• Installation of solar light-emitting diodes
(LEDs) for outdoor lighting or low level
lighting.
c. Builder-installed indoor appliances, includ-
ing dishwashers, showers, and toilets, shall be
low-water use in compliance with the adopted
California Building Code.
d. Solid Waste/Recycling - Development within
the Project shall comply with City of Upland
requirements for the provision and placement
of solid waste and recycling receptacles. The
homeowners association for the Specific Plan
shall provide educational information on recy-
cling to all homeowners as part of the initial

3.3 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Villa Serena Specific Plan
a. Residential single family detached dwelling
units and garages.
b. Residential attached and detached patios and
patio covers.
c. Public or private parks, recreational buildings,
greenbelts, and/or common area open space.
d. Small family child care/day care facilities (up
to 8 children).
e. Large family child care/day care facilities (up
to 14 children).
f. Accessory uses and structures to include the
following and which conform to the pro-
visions of Zoning Code Section 17.19
(Accessory Uses and Structures).

1. Swimming pools, spas, sports courts,
and other similar outdoor recreational
amenities.

2. Storage structures, garden structures, ca-
banas, and greenhouses.
g. Home occupations pursuant to regulations es-
tablished for Home Occupations per Upland
Municipal Code Section 17.27, "Home
Occupations."
h. Cottage Food Operations per Upland
Municipal Code Chapter 17.25 "Cottage
Foods Operations."
i. Model home and subdivision sales trail-
ers, temporary construction parking, offic-
es and facilities, real estate signs, signage
indicating future development and di-
rectional signage pursuant to approval by
the City of Development Plan Review per
Upland Municipal Code Section 17. 44.030
(Development Plan Review).

3.7 Residential Development
Standards
Residential development areas are subject to the
development standards contained in Table 3.1
“Residential Development Standards.”

Villa Serena Specific Plan3.4
SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Table 3.1
Residential Development Standards

SFD RESIDENTIAL USE
Lot Criteria
Min. Lot Width 47'
Min. Lot Depth 71'
Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.)3,337
MINIMUM SETBACKS (1) (2) (3)
Front Setback
Living Area 10'
Street Facing Garage 19’
Side Setback
From Interior PL 5’
From Street 5'
Patio Covers 5'
Rear Setback
Main Structure 15’
Patio Covers 5'
Lot Coverage
Max. Coverage 60%
Maximum Building Height (4)
Main Structure 2 Stories - Max. 35’
Patio Covers 15'
Walls, Fences and Hedges
Maximum Height at Interior or Rear Property Line (5)6’
Maximum Height of Project Perimeter Walls 6’
Maximum Height of Retaining Walls at Project Boundary 4' Maximum Height of Retaining Walls Between Lots and within Project Boundary 4' Parking
Min. Number of Parking Spaces Required (6)2 per unit within a garage plus 2 open spaces per unit Footnotes:
(1) Architectural projections and cantilevers may project a maximum of 2 feet into required front and side setback areas and 3 feet into required rear setback areas measured from the foundation to the roof plate; however, in no case shall such projection be closer than 3 feet to any property line. An architectural projection is defined as an element that articulates the building elevation such as eaves, window and door pop-out surrounds, media niches, bay windows, pot shelves, chimneys, enhanced window sills, shutter details, window trim, balconies and entry gates, and other similar elements. (2) All setbacks measured from PL unless noted otherwise. (3) Rear setback for main structure may be reduced by up to 2 feet for a maximum of 10 percent of the total number of units. (4) Architectural projections to include chimneys and antennas may exceed the maximum building height by an additional 5 feet. (5) Refer to Section 3.10.2 (Fence and Wall Standards). (6) All enclosed parking spaces within a garage shall be a minimum clear dimension of 20’ x 20’ for two spaces and 10’ x 20’ for single spaces. All open parking spaces shall be a minimum dimension of 9’ x 19’. All parallel spaces shall be a minimum dimension of 8'x22'.

3.5 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Plan Review. The form and content of land-
scape plans for streets, common area open space,
and other common areas shall conform to the
requirements of the City’s Development Plan
Review application requirements.

3.10.1 Landscape and Irrigation Standards
a. All landscaping within the Project shall
comply with the provisions of Section 4,
“Design Criteria” of this Specific Plan uti-
lizing plant materials specified on the
“Suggested Plant List” established for the
Specific Plan.
b. Landscape streetscape improvements for
streets within the Project shall conform to the
landscape treatment described for these streets
within Section 4 “Design Criteria” of this
Specific Plan.
c. The design and improvement of all common
area landscaping, including landscape and ir-
rigation plans, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City at the time of Development Plan
Review and shall conform with the require-
ments of Section 4 “Design Criteria” of this
Specific Plan.
d. Installation of landscaping and automatic irri-
gation within the front yards of all residential
areas shall be provided by the home builder
and maintained in a healthy condition at all
times. At a minimum, the builder shall install
groundcover and appropriate shrubs and trees
in the front yards of homes within residential
areas. A minimum of one 24 inch box shade
tree shall be installed within each residential
front yard. A variety of landscape designs
shall be provided by the homebuilder to the
homeowner. All landscape plans shall be re-
viewed and approved by the City at the time
of Development Plan Review.
e. No more than 50% of a front or side yard of a
residential lot shall be dedicated to driveways,
hardscape and walkways.

3.8 Temporary Uses
Temporary uses shall be permitted pursuant to
Zoning Code Chapter 17.41, “Temporary Use
Permits and Film Permits.”

3.9 Open Space Development
Standards
a. A central private common area open space
area shall be improved with recreational facil-
ities to serve all age groups of residents of the
Project. The following minimum improve-
ments shall be constructed within the central
common area open space area:

1. Swimming pool.

2. Pool house to include restrooms/changing
rooms and drinking fountains.

3. Park furniture including benches and
trellises.

4. Trash receptacles.

5. Barbecue area(s) provided with picnic
tables and barbeque grills.

6. Children’s play area.
b. Private on-site pocket parks and an off-site
public pocket park shall be constructed to
include, at a minimum, open play areas,
tot lots, park furniture, and trash recepta-
cles per the criteria for each lot established in
Section 4, Design Criteria.
c. Open space improvements shall be approved
by the City as part of Development Plan
Review.

3.10 Landscaping, Fencing, and Walls
All landscape and irrigation plans for streetscapes
and common area open space including graphic
designs with regard to the identity of the Specific
Plan, neighborhood identity, or entry monu-
ments shall conform to the regulations as set
forth herein and shall be subject to review and
approval by the City at the time of Development

3.6 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Villa Serena Specific Plan
c. Individual residential side and rear yard walls
and fencing shall not exceed six feet in height
from highest adjacent finished grade. Interior
retaining walls in public view shall not exceed
four feet in height from highest adjacent fin-
ished grade. Side and rear walls may exceed
six feet in height from adjacent finished grade
if required by the City for sound attenua-
tion pursuant to the recommendations of an
Acoustical Report and as approved by the
Director of Development Services. All side
and rear yard fences and walls shall be con-
structed consistent with the “Wall and Fence
Details” pursuant to Section 4, “Design
Criteria,” of the Specific Plan.
d. All perimeter wall and fence materi-
als throughout the Project shall be of uni-
form manufacture with colors specified for
the overall design theme as provided for in
Section 4 “Design Criteria,” of this Specific
Plan.

3.11 Signage
A Master Sign Program shall be submitted by
the developer of the Project and approved by
the City subject to approval of Development
Plan Review pursuant to Zoning Code Section

17.44.030 (Development Plan Review). The
Master Sign Program shall address residential
project entries, residential neighborhood identi-
fication signs, and way finding signs within the
project. No project signs shall be permitted in
the public right-of-way.

3.11.1 Master Sign Program Contents
The sign program shall address, at a minimum,
the following:
a. Permitted signs.
b. Prohibited signs.
c. The hierarchy of signage.
d. Definition of types of signs.
f. All manufactured and cut/fill slopes exceeding
three (3) feet in height shall be planted with
an effective mixture of ground cover, shrubs,
and trees installed by the developer. Such
slopes shall also be irrigated as necessary to
comply with any requirements established by
the City.
g. Boundary landscaping shall be required ad-
jacent to the Project Site along the perime-
ter of 15th Street. Landscaping shall general-
ly be placed along the perimeter property line
adjacent to 15th Street in accordance with
the landscape design illustrated in Section 4,
“Design Criteria,” of the Specific Plan.
h. Landscaping and automatic irrigation systems
within the public rights-of-way and private
common areas of the Project shall be installed
by the developer.

3.10.2 Fence and Wall Standards
a. Freestanding, decorative perimeter walls and
view open fencing shall be provided within
and at the perimeter of the Project Site as
specified in the "Wall and Fence Master Plan”
pursuant to Section 4, “Design Criteria,” of
the Specific Plan. Such walls and fences shall
be constructed concurrently with the con-
struction of improvements required for devel-
opment of the Project.
b. Perimeter walls and fencing shall be con-
structed consistent with the “Wall and Fence
Details” pursuant to Section 4, “Design
Criteria,” of the Specific Plan. Perimeter walls
shall not exceed six feet in height from high-
est finished grade. Retaining walls on the
15th Street perimeter shall not exceed four
feet in height. If required for sound attenu-
ation, perimeter walls may exceed six feet in
height from highest finished grade, subject to
the recommendations of an acoustical study
as approved by the Director of Development
Services.

3.7 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Villa Serena Specific Plan
c. Street lighting within the Project Site shall
comply with City specifications.
d. Private street lights shall include shielding de-
vices for “dark sky” purposes and shall direct
or reflect light downward.

3.12.4 Common Area Open Space Lighting
a. Lighting within common area open space
shall be approved by the City as part of the
City’s Development Plan Review of these
facilities.
b. Bollard lighting is recommended along walk-
ways within the common area open space.
c. Light fixtures shall include shielding devices
for “dark sky” purposes and shall direct or re-
flect light downward.
e. Locations and dimensions for monument
signs and public facilities signs.
f. Locations and dimensions of directional
signage.
g. Provisions for size, location, and duration of
display of temporary signs.
h. Permitted sign types, styles, construction ma-
terials, colors, and lettering styles.
i. Requirements for a sign permit application.
j. Procedures for obtaining approval of a sign
permit.
k. Procedures for amending the sign program.

3.12 Lighting

3.12.1 General Requirements
Project Site lighting shall be installed in accor-
dance with the following standards.
a. No light glare incidental to any use shall
be visible beyond any boundary line of the
Project Site.
b. Residential fixtures shall be uniform and un-
obtrusive. Shielded fixtures are required to
prevent up lighting and to shield lighting
source from adjacent residential areas.

3.12.2 Public Street Lights
Public streetlights installed along 15th Street as
part of the Project shall be LED. Design of fix-
tures shall be approved by the City as part of
Development Plan Review.

3.12.3 Private Street Lighting Fixtures
a. Private street lighting shall conform to the
City’s requirements for street lighting.
b. Private street lighting fixtures shall be on sen-
sors for automatic nighttime lighting. Style
and specifications for all street lights shall be
approved by the City as part of Development
Plan Review.

4.1 SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Section 4. Design Criteria

4.1 Purpose and Intent
The Specific Plan Design Criteria establish archi-
tectural and landscape design principles and re-
quirements for the Project. These design criteria
provide the foundation for the design and con-
struction of an aesthetically unified residential
development while also responding to existing
surrounding land use.

Design Guideline Objectives:
• To provide the City of Upland with the neces-
sary assurances that the Project will be devel-
oped in accordance with the quality and char-
acter proposed in this Specific Plan;
• To provide design criteria to developers,
builders, engineers, architects, landscape ar-
chitects and other professionals to ensure the
desired design quality is achieved; and
• To provide development criteria to guide de-
velopment of the Project as an attractive and
distinctive community that responds to the
character and design fabric of the surrounding
existing residential community.

4.2 Landscape Design
Careful consideration has been given to the
design of the community landscape for the
Project Site. The following design criteria are or-
ganized to help define the basic landscape design
principles for the Project. Conformance with
these criteria will help to assure a vision and in-
tegrity of design for the Project resulting in a dis-
tinctive community image and sense of place for
residents. All landscape plans, streetscape plans,
and graphic designs with regard to community
identity, neighborhood identity, or entry monu-
mentation shall conform to the criteria set forth
herein.

The intent of the landscape design criteria for
the Project is to control the appearance of the
development with respect to scale, proportion,
height, materials and colors while still encourag-
ing variety and innovation. The landscape con-
cept for the Project is illustrated on Exhibit 16,
“Conceptual Landscape Plan.”

4.2.1 Landscape Elements
Landscape design encompasses “hardscape” ele-
ments such as entry monuments, signage, walls,
fences, gates, paving, recreation and picnic
equipment, as well as “softscape” elements such
as trees, shrubs, vines and ground cover. All
landscape elements should be compatible with
the scale of the adjacent architecture and the sur-
rounding space. Water conservation and long
term maintenance should be kept in mind when
selecting specific plant material. Hydrozoning
(grouping plants with similar water require-
ments) is encouraged. Table 4.1, “Suggested
Plant List” provides planting guidelines for both
common and private areas. Compliance with
the City’s water efficient landscape ordinance is
required. The following guidelines address the
design of specific landscape elements within the
Project.

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.2
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Table 4.1
Suggested Plant List
Trees
Botanical Name Common Name Native Water Use
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Native Low
Fraxinus o. 'Raywood'Raywood Ash Non-Native Moderate
Pinus Eldarica Afghan Pine Non-Native Low
Platanus racemosal Califronia Sycamore Native Moderate
Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Native Low
Quercus ilex Holly Oak Non-Native Low
Tabebuia chrysotricha Yellow Trumpet Tree Non-Native Moderate Vines
Botanical Name Common Name Native Water Use
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig Non-Native Moderate
Rosa banksaie 'Lutea'Yellow Ladybanks Rose Non-Native Moderate Shrubs
Botanical Name Common Name Native Water Use

BACKGROUND
Carpenteria c. 'Elizabeth'Elizabeth Bush Anemone Native Moderate Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Native Low
Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew Pine Non-Native Moderate
Prunus ilicifolia Catalina Cherry Native Low
Rhamnus c. 'Eve Case' Eve Case Coffeeberry Native Low
Salvia clevelandii Cleveland Sage Non-Native Low
Sambucus nigra Black Elderberry Native Low
Tagetes lemonii Mexican Marigold Non-Native Low

MIDGROUND
Artemisia 'Powis Castle'Wormwood Non-Native Low
Baccharis x 'Starn' Starn Coyote Brush Native Low
Cistus x p. 'Sunset' Magenta Rockrose Non-Native Low
Epilobium 'Route 66' California Fuschia Native Low
Eriogonum fasciculatum California Buckwheat Native Very Low Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Non-Native Low
Leymus c. 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye Native Low Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky Monkey Flower Native Very Low Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly Non-Native Low
Muhlenbergia dubia Pine Muhly Non-Native Low
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Non-Native Moderate
Ribes speciosum Fuschia-Flowering Gooseberry Native Moderate Rosa species Rose Non-Native Moderate
Rosmarinus species Rosemary Non-Native Low
Russelia equisetiformis Firecracker Plant Non-Native Moderate Salvia species Sage Native Low

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.3
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Table 4.1
Suggested Plant List (cont.)

FOREGROUND
Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Non-Native Low
Achillea x 'moonshine'Moonshine Yarrow Hybrid Low
Baccharis p. 'Pigeon Point' Pigeon Point Native Low
Bouteloua g. 'Blonde Ambition'Blonde Ambition Blue Grama Native Low Carex pansa Meadow Sedge Native Moderate
Carex praegracilis Ca field Sedge Native Moderate
Cistus x p. 'Sunset' Magenta Rockrose Non-Native Low
Dianella species Flax Lily Non-Native Low
Eriogonum f. 'Warriner Lytle' California Buckwheat Native Very Low Festuca i. 'Siskiyou Blue'Siskiyou Blue Fescue Non-Native Low Juncus p. 'Elk Blue'Elk Blue CA Coyote Brush Native Low Lavandula species Lavender Non-Native Low
Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus' Creeping rosemary Non-Native Low

PARKWAY SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER
Achillea x 'Moonshine' Moonshine Yarrow Hybrid Low
Bouteloua g.'Blonde Ambition'Blonde Ambition Blue Grama Native Low Cistus x p.'Sunset'Magenta Rockrose Non-Native Low
Festuca i. 'Siskiyou blue' Siskiyou Blue Fescue Non-Native Low Rosmarinus o.'Prostratus'Creeping Rosemary Non-Native Low

ENTRY SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER
Achillea x 'Moonshine' Moonshine Yarrow Hyrbid Low
Cistus x p. 'Sunset'Magenta Rockrose Native Low
Festuca i. 'Siskiyou Blue' Siskiyou Blue Fescue Non-Native Low Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Non-Native Low
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Non-Native Moderate
Rhamnus c. 'Eve Case' Eve Case Coffeeberry Native Low
Rosa species Rose Non-Native Moderate
Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus'Creeping Rosemary Non-Native Low Salvia species Sage Native Low

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.4
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: Architerra Design GroupExhibit 16
Conceptual Landscape Plan

4.5 SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Villa Serena Specific Plan
The Primary Community Entry is illustrated
on Exhibit 17, “Primary Community Entry”
and Exhibit 18, "Primary Community Entry
Elevation View."
The Secondary Community Entry for the
Project at 15th Street is illustrated on Exhibit 19,
"Secondary Entry."

4.2.3 Streetscapes
Streetscape design within the interior of the
Project Site shall be consistent in character and
should help to promote pedestrian circulation
within the community. Streetscapes are designed
to provide a clear delineation between pedestrian
and vehicular travel areas. Shrubs, low ground-
covers, and "California Friendly" ornamental
grasses are used to the greatest extent possible to
reduce maintenance and conserve resources. The
planting plan for streets includes informal plant-
ings of trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and grasses.

Uniformed spacing of trees is avoided in order to
create an interesting and inviting pedestrian ex-
perience while also offering visual interest to mo-
torists encouraging them to slow driving speeds
and observe their surroundings. The following
design criteria apply to streetscape design for the
Project.
• Landscape treatments of each street shall be
consistent throughout the length of the street
in the neighborhood.
• Landscape treatments shall generally utilize
street trees planted at intervals of 50 feet on
center as feasible. Street trees shall be placed
a minimum of eight feet from street light
standards.
• Street tree planting as described below shall
generally utilize one or two primary species
for each street with a limited number of addi-
tional species to be used as accent planting.

The streetscape plan for Project streets is illus-
trated on Exhibit 20, “Streetscape Key Map,”
and Exhibits 21-27, “Streetscape Sections.”

4.2.2 Community Entries
The Primary Community Entry to the Project
Site includes a blend of hardscape and plant-
ing elements. Entry lighting shall avoid intense-
ly bright lighting of monuments. Entry mon-
uments should be lit to provide a soft wash of
light across the monument signage. Paving at
the Primary Community Entry should provide a
softened appearance while providing a hard sur-
face for vehicle use. The Primary Community
Entry shall include the following:
• Use of accent shrubs on each side of the entry
drive and enhanced paving at the entry drive.
• A 6 foot high tubular steel fence and gate and
a 6 foot high wall with an area for the Project
identification sign, six foot high pilasters on
each side of the wall with brick caps.
• A 3 foot wide pedestrian access gate adjacent
to the vehicular entry gates with a six foot pi-
laster on each side.

The Secondary Entry allows for resident exit
only from the community and emergency ve-
hicle access to and from the community. The
Secondary Entry shall include the following:
• Parkway trees within the 15th Street right of
way adjacent to the Project Site.
• A variety of accent trees and shrub masses
planted in a series of layers (foreground, mid
ground, background at the Project Entry, and
along 15th Street adjacent to the Project Site)
to help define borders and plant groupings
while combining interesting foliage textures
and color.
• Accent lighting for landscape and
monumentation.
• Varying width landscape buffer areas located
where residential side property lines abut the
community entry street.
• A 6 foot high tubular steel view fence and
gate with 6 foot 8 inch high pilasters on either
side of the gate.

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.6
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 17
Primary Community Entry
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.7
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 18
Primary Community Entry
Elevation View
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.8
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 19
Secondary Entry
Source: Architerra Design Group
N

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.9
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: Architerra Design GroupExhibit 20
Streetscape Key Map

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.10
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
A
A
Source: Architerra Design GroupExhibit 21
Streetscape Sections

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.11
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
B
B
Exhibit 22
Streetscape Sections
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.12
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
C
C
Exhibit 23
Streetscape Sections
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.13
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
D D
Exhibit 24
Streetscape Sections
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.14
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
E1
Exhibit 25
Streetscape Sections
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.15
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
E
Exhibit 26
Streetscape Sections
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.16
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
F
F
Exhibit 27
Streetscape Sections
Source: Architerra Design Group

4.17 SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Villa Serena Specific Plan
Off-site public open space improvements to
be constructed as part of the project include a
pocket park adjacent to 15th Street at the south/
westerly corner of the Project Site.

The central common open space and pocket
parks for the Project are illustrated on
Exhibit 28, “Central Open Space Plan,” Exhibits
29, and 30, "Pocket Parks." The concept for
the central mailbox site within the central open
space recreational area is illustrated on Exhibit
31," Central Mailbox Plan." Open space ame-
nities such as tot lots, furnishings, and exer-
cise stations planned for the pocket parks are
illustrated in Exhibits 32-35, "Open Space
Amenities."

4.2.4 Open Space and Connectivity
The Project will have common area open space
provided for the active and passive recreation-
al use of its residents. Walkways will lead to the
areas designated for common area open space.

The private on-site common area open space
plan for the Project consists of the following
elements:

A centrally located open space area to include
the following improvements:
• Swimming pool and spa.
• Picnic and barbeque area with an overhead
shade structure.
• Pool house with restrooms/changing areas and
drinking fountains.
• Exercise station.
• Children's play area.
• Landscaped walkway connecting the active
recreational area with residences.

The central open space area will also include the
central mailbox location for the Project. The cen-
tral open space area will be heavily landscaped
with canopy trees to provide shade, shrubs, and
ground cover.

Five on-site pocket parks will be provided for
passive recreational use. Two pocket parks are
planned at each end of the Project Site and two
are planned within interior areas of the Project.

The pocket parks will be heavily landscaped
with canopy trees to provide shade, shrubs, and
ground cover. Benches will be provided under
canopy trees and each pocket park will pro-
vide children's play areas. One pocket park will
also provide a putting green. One pocket park
is planned as a linear park to include a private
pedestrian trail and a separate public pedestri-
an and bicycle trail connecting to the adjacent
off-site basin open space area. This park will be
heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs. Bench
seating will be provided along the trail.

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.18
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 28
Central Open Space Plan N
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.19
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 29
Pocket Parks
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.20
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 30
Pocket Parks
F
E
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.21
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 31
Central Mailbox Plan
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.22
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 32
Open Space Amenities
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.23
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 33
Open Space Amenities
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.24
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 34
Open Space Amenities
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.25
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 35
Open Space Amenities
Source: Architerra Design Group

4.26 SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Villa Serena Specific Plan

4.3.3 Other Fences
• Tubular steel fencing is permitted to secure tot
lot areas.
• Emergency vehicle access areas and the basin
access gate shall be secured with tubular steel
gates.

4.4 Outdoor Lighting
Lighting of streets, common area open space,
and select landscaped areas should be consid-
ered for safety and security. Utilization of “dark
sky friendly” light fixtures on local streets shall
be required. Maintaining the character of tradi-
tional materials will create a pedestrian scale for
the neighborhood. Lighting fixtures within the
Project shall be consistent in style, color, and ma-
terials in order to maintain uniformity through-
out the Project. The style for street lighting fix-
tures within the Project is illustrated on Exhibit
40, “Typical Street Light Fixture.”
A hierarchy for all lighting within the Project
shall be established by using a variety of light-
ing fixtures and illumination levels based lighting
design intent. Lighting styles shall tie into archi-
tectural styles and provide sufficient illumination
for the safety and well being of the communi-
ty. Frosted, louvered, or prismatic lens should be
considered where decorative lighting fixtures are
visible and part of the aesthetic lighting program.

4.4.1 Entry Monument Lighting
Avoid intensely bright or “hot” lighting of the
Primary Community Entry monument; the mon-
ument should be lit to provide a soft wash of light
across the monument signage. Specimen trees at
the Secondary Entry should be up-lit with sever-
al fixtures into the canopy to avoid creating dark
sides of the trees.

4.3 Walls and Fencing
Walls and fencing are an important component
of the overall landscape design of a community.

Walls and fences should be designed to comple-
ment and reinforce landscape design in estab-
lishing the image and theme of the community.

The type and location of Project walls and fences
are described on Exhibits 36 and 37, “Wall and
Fence Plan.” As part of the Project ,fencing will
be installed along the boundary of the existing
Upland Basin trail as illustrated on Exhibit 38,
“Basin Trail Fence Plan.” Fence and wall details
are described on Exhibit 39, “Wall and Fence
Details.”

4.3.1 Community Walls
Community walls constructed as part of
the Project shall be decorative in nature.

Community perimeter walls constructed as part
of the Project shall be a combination of split face
block and view fencing. The community entry
along 15th Street and the project boundary ad-
jacent to the linear pocket park shall have black
tubular fencing constructed around these areas.

Use of decorative caps and pilasters to help en-
hance the perimeter appeal of the walls is re-
quired. Walls and fencing within the expanded
15th Street Project access roadway shall incor-
porate existing residential walls and new retain-
ing walls on the north side and existing and new
chain link fencing on the south side. All perime-
ter walls shall be constructed within the bound-
aries of the Project Site.

4.3.2 Residential Walls and Fences
Rear yard property walls constructed as part of
the Project shall be decorative split face block
with accent pilasters at intervals along the wall.

Vinyl fencing may be used along interior resi-
dential property lines.

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.27
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 36
Wall and Fence Plan
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.28
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 37
Wall and Fence Plan
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.29
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 38
Basin Trail Fence Plan
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.30
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Exhibit 39
Wall and Fence Details
Source: Architerra Design Group

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.31
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
A lighting profile determines when your light will be on and how bright it will be through the night. For First Light products, there are two types of lighting profiles – duration based lighting profiles and real-time based lighting profiles.

FIRST LIGHT TECHNOLOGIES SOLAR LED LUMINAIRES

CHOOSING THE RIGHT

LIGHTING PROFILE

DURATION BASED

LIGHTING PROFILES

DAWNDUSKNIGHT
On at dusk > off at dawn
On at dusk > off after 6 hours
On at dusk > after 6 hours
dim to 30% > off at dawn
On at dusk > off after for 5 hours > on 1 hour before
dawn > off at dawn
On at dusk > dim to 30% after 5 hours > brighten to
100% 1 hour before dawn > off at dawn
On at dusk > off after 3 hours
On at dusk > off after 4 hours
On at dusk > off after 4 hours > on 1 hour
before dawn > off at dawn
Off (with motion sensing)
On at dusk > after 3 hours dim to 30% > brighten to
100% 1 hour before dawn > off at dawn
On 30% at dusk > off at dawn
00 01
02 03
04 05
06 07
08 09
10 WHAT ARE DURATION BASED LIGHTING PROFILES?
Duration based profiles are based on when lights detect dusk and dawn. We offer several options to provide full brightness and dimming for fixed durations during the night. Note that there is no additional set up required at time of install. [email protected] / 1-844-279-8754
Or
d
e
r

K
e
y

C
o
d
e
s
00 01
02 03
04 05
06 07
08 09
10 Exhibit 40
Typical Street Light Fixture
Source: Visual Concepts Lighting, Inc.

4.32 SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Villa Serena Specific Plan
• Enhance the pedestrian and biking experience
through attractive and comprehensible way-
finding signage and destination identifiers.

4.5.2 Sign Design Criteria
The following design criteria shall be considered
for Project signs:
• Signs shall be of uniform design relative to
each other, sharing similar colors, materials,
and shapes.
• Signs shall be color compatible with build-
ing architecture and landscape features on the
site.
• Materials shall include the use of real veneer
materials instead of faux concrete veneers.

4.6 Architectural Design
The architecture represented in the Project shall
be comprised of rich, traditional styles that com-
plement one another and serve to reinforce di-
versity in the community street scene. Three sep-
arate and distinct architectural styles influenced
by thematic architecture found within California
have been selected for the Project. Each style is
presented on the following pages describing the
characteristics that begin to express the antici-
pated architectural character for the community.

These styles are influenced and inspired by the
themes of each style, all represented in historical
California architecture. Other architectural styles
may be approved for the Project by the City as
part of Development Plan Review. Other styles
should exhibit compatibility to the three styles
described below.

4.4.2 Open Space Areas and Walkway Lighting
Lighting of the walkways within open space
areas should be considered for safety and secu-
rity. Security lighting fixtures shall be vandal re-
sistant, not less than (8) eight feet from ground
level. Low level pedestrian lighting along walk-
ways within open space areas should be provided
to create a better sense of scale to the pedestrian.

Luminaries of not less than 42” in height may
be utilized to illuminate a walkway if adjacent
landscaping is of a variety that does not mature
higher than two feet.

4.5 Signs
All signs within the Project shall conform to a
sign program submitted by the applicant and ap-
proved by the City. The sign program shall serve
to reinforce the overall design theme for the
community and to promote an overall “sense of
place” through architecturally integrated, visu-
ally coordinated, and aesthetically balanced sign
design. As part of the sign program the design
of all sign graphics shall be carefully considered
in relation to the site architecture and land-
scaping, as well as to the specific content of the
area. Conformity of design among all signs is
required.

4.5.1 Sign Program Objectives
Signs within the Project shall address the follow-
ing objectives:
• Provide a project identity through elements
that convey a distinct community character
enhancing the collective architectural theme.
• Provide for a hierarchy of signs to address
Project identity, directions and informa-
tion within the community, and identify
the common area open space and Project
amenities.
• Ensure the efficient circulation of vehicle
traffic within the Project Site.

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.33
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA

4.6.1 Spanish Influenced Style
The Spanish style is an adaptation of the Mission Revival style, reflecting features such as strong form and mass, plain stucco wall surfaces, and tile roofs. The front elevations are very simply articulated and detailed. Further architectural distinction is established through the use of heavily textured wooden doors, colorful decorative ceramic tile accents and robust ornamental ironwork. The charm of the Spanish style lies in the directness, adaptability and contrast of materials and textures.

The following elements define the Spanish architectural style for the Project.

Massing:
• Simple massing and forms with varied roof forms.

General Materials:
• Stucco finished walls.
• Rounded stucco arches.
• Wrought iron accents.
• Thick walls.
• Deep recessed openings.
• Clay pipe details at gable ends.

Roof Materials and Forms:
• Low-pitched roofs.
• Minimal overhangs.
• Gable main roof with intersecting gables.
• Concrete ‘S’ tiles.

Detail Elements:
• Arched window/door openings.
• Decorative columns and trim.
• Recessed windows.
• Decorative plank shutters.
• Window trims at top and bottom.
• Decorative corbels and roof finials.
• Wrought iron details.
• Vertically proportioned windows.
• Decorative flared walls.
• 16-panel garage door
The characteristics of the Spanish architectural style are illustrated on Exhibit 41, “Spanish Style.”

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.34
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 41
Spanish Style

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.35
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA

4.6.2 Italianate Influences
The Italianate style as interpreted and conceived by Southern California architects of the early 20th cen- tury adapted the grand formal elegance of the Italian Renaissance estate with a localized approach to de- tailing and scale. Composed primarily of stacked two-story forms, the front elevations of these homes display a distinct organization of windows and doors, often with a centrally located, articulated entry.

Key identifying features of this style include low-pitched hip roofs and rich architectural detailing in- cluding decorative cornice brackets, enhanced horizontal banding, and arched elements.

The following elements define the Italianate architectural style for the Project.

Massing:
• Stacked two-story massing.

General Materials:
• Stucco finished walls.
• Porches with arched openings.
• Color blocking for added visual interest.
• Corbels at soffits and eaves elements.
• Stucco belly bands.

Roof Materials and Forms:
• Low-pitched roofs.
• Hip roofs typical.
• Minimal overhangs.
• Concrete ‘S’ tiles.

Detail Elements:
• Mullions in vertical patterns.
• Window trims at top, bottom, and sides.
• Paired window groupings.
• Decorative louvered shutter.
• Solid eaves at select locations.
• Decorative belly bands.
• Wide corbels at eaves.
• Decorative pot shelves.
• Simulated precast surround at entries.
• Built-up eaves.
• 32-panel garage door.

The characteristics of the Italianate architectural style are illustrated on Exhibits 42, “Italianate Style.”

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.36
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 42
Italianate Style

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.37
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA

4.6.3 French Country Influences
The French Country style is based upon early American interpretations of French Medieval architec- ture that made its way across the United States from the Mississippi regions around the turn of the cen- tury. Usually taking the form of larger manor homes and estates, this architectural style was adapted to fit smaller informal rural homes. Popular in fairy tale illustrations, the French Country style conveys a romantic and picturesque architecture replicating the cottages that dot the rustic French countryside.

American interpretations include simple, asymmetrical forms with steeply-pitched roofs.

Massing:
• Simple massing with asymmetrical forms and gable roofs.

General Materials:
• Stucco finished walls.
• Vertical windows.
• Simple detailing.

Roof Materials and Forms:
• Steep roof forms with multiple pitches.
• Gable and hip roof forms.
• Large, simple roof planes.
• Gable end venting in various styles.
• Extended roof overhangs.
• Flat concrete tile to simulate shake materials.

Detail Elements:
• Decorative Z-plank shutters.
• Wood porch columns with decorative brackets.
• Box bay windows.
• Grouped windows.
• Multi-paned windows.
• Window trims at top, bottom and sides.
• Arched openings.
• 16-panel garage door with decorative vertical slats.

The characteristics of the French Country architectural style are illustrated on Exhibits 43, “French Country Style.”

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.38
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 43
French Country Style

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.39
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA

4.6.4 Architectural Enhancements
Where building elevations front onto the adjacent golf course and along certain portions of 15th Street these elevations will be enhanced with special architectural features consistent with the architectural style of the building. Examples of these special enhancements include, but are not limited to:
• Decorative foam shutters around master bedroom and/or master bath windows. • Additional window with decorative wrought iron pot shelf at master closet. • Decorative stucco over foam shaped corbels at the sides of the gable at the master bedroom and/or master bath.
• Pop out wall with a gable or hip roof with stucco over foam shaped corbels at the sides of the gable at the master bedroom.
• Decorative clay pipes at the added gable end.
• Stucco over foam shaped corbels with sand finish under the cantilever at the master bath or bedroom. • Decorative foam shutters at the master bedroom or bath windows. • Stucco over foam trim band along the entire elevation. • Additional window with decorative foam shutters at master closet. • Stucco over foam trim band along the entire elevation.

The locations of architecturally enhanced elevations are identified on Exhibit 44, “Architectural Enhancements Key Map.” Typical enhancements for each architectural style are illustrated on Exhibit 45, “Enhanced Elevation Spanish Style,” Exhibit 46, “Enhanced Elevation French Country Style,” and Exhibit 47, “Enhanced Elevation, Italianate Style.”

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.40
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 44
Architectural Enhancements Key Map
N

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.41
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 45
Enhanced Elevation Spanish Style

Villa Serena Specific Plan4.42
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 46
Enhanced Elevation French Country Style

Villa Serena Specific Plan 4.43
SECTION 4. DESIGN CRITERIA
Source: KB HomeExhibit 47
Enhanced Elevation Italianate Style

V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT

U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA

R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024

\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank

R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024

V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT

U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA

\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24)

APPENDIX C

AIR QUALITY-GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT

V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT

U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA

R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024

\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank

DATE: September 30, 2024
TO: Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director FROM: Haseeb Qureshi
Ali Dadabhoy
JOB NO: 14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS

ASSESSMENT
Robert D. Dalquest,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the Villa Serena Specific Plan (Project), which is located on the northeast corner of Fernando Avenue and 15th Street in the City of Upland.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is proposed to consist of the development of 65 single family detached residential dwelling units, the 15th Street extension and the basin trail. The proposed Project is anticipated to have an opening year of 2025. The Project’s Tentative Tract Map is shown as Exhibit 1.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project would result in a less than significant with respect to air quality and greenhouse gases.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT’S TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

AIR QUALITY SETTING

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB)
The Project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (3). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As previously stated, the Project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745-square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.

The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.

Regional Climate

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.

The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.

Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfates (SO4) is heightened in air with high relative humidity. The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent (%) along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.

More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.

Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.

The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind.

Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the SCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions.

These inversions occur primarily in the winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.

Wind Patterns and Project Location
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.

Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.

Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) (precursor emissions include NOX and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
Sensitive Receptor Locations
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.

Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 2 under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report. • Receptor R1 represents the existing residence at 1168 Upland Hills Dr S, approximately 187 feet north of the Project site.
• Receptor R2 represents the existing residence at 1246 Upland Hills Dr S, approximately 144 feet north of the Project site.
• Receptor R3 represents the existing residence at 1442 Upland Hills Dr S, approximately 179 feet north of the Project site.
• Receptor R4 represents the existing residence at 1512 Grove Ave, approximately 51 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R5 represents the existing residence at 1377 E 15th St, approximately 27 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R6 represents the existing residence at 1345 E 15th St, approximately 17 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R7 represents the existing residence at 1496 Carlos Way, approximately 59 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R8 represents the existing residence at 1497 Fernando Ave, approximately 28 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R9 represents the existing residence at 1030 Sawtooth Dr, approximately 29 feet north of the Project site.
• Receptor R10 represents the existing residence at 1540 N Himalayas Cir, approximately 12 feet northwest of the Project site.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O3, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and lead (Pb) (5). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (6). The CAA also mandates that each state submit and implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (7) (8). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NOX. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of NOX which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (1) (2).

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.

Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NOX, CO and PM10. However, air basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.

AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards (10). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIRMENTS
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (3) (4) (5).

SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. • All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SCAQMD Rule 445
This rule is intended to reduce the emission of particulate matter from wood-burning devices.

The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development.

SCAQMD Rule 1113
This rule serves to limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects in the SCAQMD must comply with the current VOC standards set in this rule.

METHODOLOGY
In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational- source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (6). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are taken from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (14 CCR §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (7):
• Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
• Threshold 4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (8). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2023) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day

AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Northwest San Bernardino Valley Area monitoring station (SRA 32). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look-up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project’s disturbed acreage.

The acres disturbed is based on the equipment list and days in the site preparation and grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. The equipment-specific grading rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod (9). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies equipment-specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Scrapers; therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in grading was replaced with crawler tractors. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) since this phase represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
The Project’s construction activities could disturb a maximum of approximately 2.5 acres per day for site preparation and 3.5 acres per day for grading activities. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As such, Table 2 presents thresholds for localized construction and operational emissions.

TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Site Preparation 187 lbs/day 1,392 lbs/day 8 lbs/day 6 lbs/day Grading 220 lbs/day 1,713 lbs/day 11 lbs/day 7 lbs/day 1Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 14.

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 3. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

TABLE 3: OVERALL REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 1.42 12.50 16.30 0.03 0.91 0.59
Winter
2024 4.58 45.80 36.40 0.14 8.78 4.81
2025 39.90 7.53 10.90 0.01 0.54 0.37
Maximum Daily Emissions 39.90 45.80 36.40 0.14 8.78 4.81 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.

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

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Villa Serena Specific Plan Traffic Analysis report were utilized in this analysis (10).

The estimated operation-source emissions from the Project are summarized on Table 4. Detailed operation model outputs are presented in Attachment A. As shown on Table 4, operational- source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

TABLE 4: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 2.47 2.22 20.80 0.05 1.68 0.33
Area Source 3.32 1.01 4.09 0.01 0.08 0.08
Energy Source 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 5.82 3.74 25.11 0.06 1.80 0.45 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 2.29 2.38 17.50 0.05 1.68 0.33
Area Source 2.99 0.97 0.41 0.01 0.08 0.08
Energy Source 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 5.31 3.86 18.13 0.06 1.80 0.45 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (11). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4 1. LSTs represent

1 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.”

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor.

The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R10 represented by the existing residence at 1540 N Himalayas Circle, approximately 12 feet northwest of the Project site.

Receptors in the Project study area shown on Exhibit 2.

As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. It should be noted that the existing residence (R10) is located at a closer distance than the nearest industrial/commercial use. As such, the same receptor will be used for evaluation of localized NOX and CO.

It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (11).” As such, for evaluation of localized PM10, PM2.5, NOx and CO, a 25-meter distance will be used.

EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Table 5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak demolition, site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein.

As shown in Table 5, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related construction-source emissions and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 5: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.50 35.30 7.91 4.76
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 1,392 8 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 23.10 20.60 3.62 2.16
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.

The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square-mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB.

In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (12). Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (13). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook (18). These indicators are discussed below.

The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that under this criterion refer to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.

The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build- out phase.

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Upland General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.

Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

The City of Upland General Plan designates the Project site for Public Utilities – Flood Control (PU- FC). The (PU) land use designation provides areas for landfills, flood control/recharge facilities, and public utilities including gas, electricity, and water (14).

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
As indicated, the proposed Project will consist of 65 single family residential dwelling units, the 15th Street extension and the basin trail, which would likely exceed the growth intensities. As the proposed Project is consistent with site’s land use designation, would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds, and would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations, the Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP and a less than significant impact is expected.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.

The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:

White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (15). In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project- specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Construction Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

Operational Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 3
Would the expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.

To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods2. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any exceedance e of the 1-hour (20.0 ppm) or 8-hour (9.0 ppm) CO standards, as shown on Table 6.

2 The CO “hot spot” analysis conducted in 2003 is the most current study used for CO “hot spot” analysis in the SCAB.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
TABLE 6: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, of the 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (i.e., the highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (16). In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 2.1 ppm and 1.5 ppm, respectively (data from Central Orange County station for 2021). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were ten times the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, due to the on-going improvements in ambient air quality and vehicular emissions controls, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections. As noted above, only 0.7 ppm were attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at one of the busiest intersections in the SCAB.

Therefore if these traffic volumes were multiplied by ten times, it could be expected that the CO attributable to traffic would increase tenfold as well, resulting in 7 ppm – even if this were added to either the 1-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations within the Project study area, this would result in 9.1 ppm and 8.5 ppm for the 1-hr and 8-hr timeframes, respectively. Neither of which would exceed the applicable 1-hr standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hr standard of 9 ppm.

Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (17). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 3-11. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (16).

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
TABLE 7: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.

Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construct ion. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (18).

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

PROJECT GHG ANALYSIS

CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING
Global climate change (GCC) is the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated in this memo cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, this memo will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.

GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.

For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.

REGULATORY SETTING
Executive Order S-3-05
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Assembly Bill (AB) 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “GHGs” as defined under AB 32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs.

CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric ton of CO2 equivalent per year (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (19). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (20). At that level, a 28.4% reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, CARB prepared an updated BAU 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a

21.7% reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (21).

Progress in Achieving AB 32 Targets and Remaining Reductions Required The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S-3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by CARB for 2000 through 2012 (22). The State has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target.
• 1990: 427 MMTCO2e (AB 32 2020 target)
• 2000: 463 MMTCO2e (an average 8% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2010: 450 MMTCO2e (an average 5% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base)

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
CARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020. As described earlier in this section, CARB revised the 2020 BAU inventory forecast to account for new lower growth projections, which resulted in a new lower reduction from BAU to achieve the 1990 base. The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levels was 28.4% and the latest reduction from 2020 BAU is 21.7%. • 2020: 545 MMTCO2e BAU (an average 21.7% reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base)
Senate Bill (SB) 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3- 05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature (23).

AB 197
A condition of approval for SB 32 was the passage of AB 197. AB 197 requires that CARB consider the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize direct reductions in GHG emissions at mobile sources and large stationary sources. AB 197 also gives the California legislature more oversight over CARB through the addition of two legislatively appointed members to the CARB Board and the establishment a legislative committee to make recommendations about CARB programs to the legislature.

Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B- 55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.

Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective on January 1, 2023 3. As construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed in 2025, it is presumed that the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time.

SCAQMD
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 metric ton of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e/yr)

3 The 2022 California Green Building Standard Code was published on July 1, 2022.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e/yr; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e/yr; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e per SP per year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e per SP per year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.

SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the project would include stationary sources of emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations.

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials. • Rule 2701, Southern California (SoCal) Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

City of Upland Climate Action Plan
The City of Upland released a final draft CAP in September 2015 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15183.5(a), which states that lead agencies may adopt a plan

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
for the reduction of GHG emissions that can then be used for project-specific environmental documents to tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5 (b), 15064 (h), and 15130 (32). The CAP was designed under the premise that the City of Upland, and the community it represents, is uniquely capable of addressing emissions associated with sources under the City of Upland’s jurisdiction, and that the City of Upland’s emission reduction efforts should coordinate with the state strategies of reducing emissions in order to accomplish these reductions in an efficient and cost- effective manner.

GHG IMPACTS
Standards of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts from GHG emissions are significant. Would the project:
• Threshold 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The City of Upland has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year to determine if additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by numerous cities in the South Coast Air Basin and is based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required (24). As noted by the SCAQMD:
“…the…screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects...the policy objective of [SCAQMD’s] recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that [SCAQMD] staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 [MMTCO2e/yr]). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to [Best Available Control Technology] (BACT) for criteria pollutants

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
and are more likely to be single-permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.” (24) Thus, and based on guidance from the SCAQMD, if a non-industrial project would emit GHGs less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the project is not considered a substantial GHG emitter and the GHG impact is less than significant, requiring no additional analysis and no mitigation. On the other hand, if a non-industrial project would emit GHGs in excess of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, then the project could be considered a substantial GHG emitter, requiring additional analysis and potential mitigation. As previously discussed, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is an acceptable approach for small projects to determine if additional analysis is required and is therefore applied for this Project.

GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment?

PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized on Table 8. The estimated GHG emission include emissions from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and Refrigerants (R). As shown on Table 8, the Project would generate a total of approximately 1,052.17 MTCO2e/yr.

TABLE 8: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Source
Emission (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2E
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 18.77 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 8.00E-03 19.14 Mobile 778.00 0.04 0.04 1.32 792.00
Area 15.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 15.10
Energy 186.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 187.00
Water 16.30 0.09 < 0.005 0.00 19.20
Waste 5.60 0.56 0.00 0.00 19.60
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
Total CO2E (All Sources) 1,052.17
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not been established by the SCAQMD for Projects where it is not the lead agency. As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the City has opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook.

Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all projects (24).

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment
The Project would result in approximately 1,052.17 MTCO2e/yr; the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? As previously stated, pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions (25). Project consistency with the City’s CAP is evaluated in the following discussion.

The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. The 2022 Scoping Plan advocates for compliance with a local CAP to determine consistency (26).

City of Upland CAP Consistency
The proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen building standards, as well as implement various sustainability features with which the project applicant is required to comply.

These features would foster, among other benefits, reductions in energy consumption, waste generation, and associated pollution. In addition, newer construction materials and practices, current energy efficiency requirements, and newer appliances tend to emit lower levels of air pollutant emissions, including GHGs, as compared to materials and equipment used years ago.

One of the City’s methods to reduce GHG emissions is to encourage “smart growth” or promote efficient land use development (27).

According to the City’s CAP under Objective B: Maximize Land Use Efficiency, the project is consistent with transportation and land use Measure T-7: Residential Density. The proposed project would increase residential density on the flood control basin, which would help the City to increase residential land use density goals in the CAP.

Finally, the Project is consistent with the general plan land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in SCAG's Sustainable Community Strategy/Regional Transportation Plan, which pursuant to SB 375 calls for the integration of transportation, land-use and housing policies to plan for achievement of the GHG-emissions target for the region. Thus, a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions from Project construction and operation would occur and no mitigation is required.

Robert D. Dalquest, Development Services Director
September 30, 2024

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and greenhouse gas.

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited:

April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm .

2. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics .

3. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 .

4. —. RULE 445. Wood-Burning Devices. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-445.pdf.

5. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.

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

7. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.

8. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

9. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CalEEMod. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

10. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Villa Serena Specific Plan Traffic Analysis . 2022.

11. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.

12. —. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] March 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=11.

13. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] September 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176.

14. City of Upland. City of Upland General Plan: Land Use Element. [Online] 2015. https://www.uplandca.gov/uploads/ftp/city_departments/development_services/plann ing/general_plan_map/pdfs/01_Land%20Use%20Element%20-
%20revised%20LU%20map.pdf.

15. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf .

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

16. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. [Online] 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt- plan/2003-aqmp.

17. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [Online] http://www.baaqmd.gov/ .

18. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf .

19. California Air Resources Board. GHG 1990 Emissions Level & 2020 Limit. California Air Resources Board. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-2020-limit .

20. —. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. 2008.

21. —. STATUS OF SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED MEASURES. [Online] [Cited: September 19, 2019.] https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf .

22. —. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2014.

23. California Legislative Information. Senate Bill No. 32. [Online] September 8, 2016. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32 .

24. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Interim CEQA GHG Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. [Online] December 5, 2008.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf.

25. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2018.

26. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scopuing Plan Documents. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022- scoping-plan-documents.

27. City of Upland. City of Upland Climate Action Plan. [Online] 2015. http://www.ci.upland.ca.us/uploads/ftp/city_departments/development_services/plan ning/pdfs/Attachment%206%20-%20Final%20Draft%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf.

14896-04 AQ & GHG Assesment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
1 / 45
14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
2 / 45

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
3 / 45

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
4 / 45

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
5 / 45

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
6 / 45

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
7 / 45

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14896 Villa Serena
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.80
Precipitation (days)2.20
Location 34.1184295523901, -117.63468136395888
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Upland
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5225
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing

65.0 Dwelling Unit 9.16 126,750 761,336 —215 —

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
8 / 45

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.71 1.42 12.5 16.3 0.03 0.54 0.37 0.91 0.50 0.09 0.59 —3,185 3,185 0.14 0.07 1.95 3,210 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.5.44 39.9 45.8 36.4 0.14 2.25 7.12 8.78 2.07 2.74 4.81 —20,938 20,938 2.08 2.87 0.98 21,845 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.52 2.23 11.6 12.9 0.03 0.49 0.78 1.28 0.45 0.25 0.70 —3,301 3,301 0.21 0.20 1.44 3,367 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.28 0.41 2.12 2.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.08 0.05 0.13 —546 546 0.03 0.03 0.24 557

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
9 / 45
2024 1.71 1.42 12.5 16.3 0.03 0.54 0.37 0.91 0.50 0.09 0.59 —3,185 3,185 0.14 0.07 1.95 3,210 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 5.44 4.58 45.8 36.4 0.14 2.25 7.12 8.78 2.07 2.74 4.81 —20,938 20,938 2.08 2.87 0.98 21,845 2025 1.02 39.9 7.53 10.9 0.01 0.35 0.20 0.54 0.32 0.05 0.37 —1,705 1,705 0.07 0.02 0.02 1,713 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 1.52 1.18 11.6 12.9 0.03 0.49 0.78 1.28 0.45 0.25 0.70 —3,301 3,301 0.21 0.20 1.44 3,367 2025 0.07 2.23 0.46 0.68 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 —103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 104 Annual ——————————————————
2024 0.28 0.22 2.12 2.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.08 0.05 0.13 —546 546 0.03 0.03 0.24 557 2025 0.01 0.41 0.08 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.2

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.3.24 5.82 3.74 25.2 0.06 0.16 1.65 1.80 0.15 0.29 0.45 39.0 7,510 7,549 4.29 0.25 19.6 7,752 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.2.71 5.31 3.87 18.2 0.06 0.15 1.65 1.80 0.15 0.29 0.45 39.0 7,184 7,223 4.30 0.26 1.30 7,410 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.2.78 5.42 2.98 20.6 0.05 0.08 1.62 1.70 0.08 0.29 0.37 39.0 6,006 6,045 4.27 0.26 8.77 6,237 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
10 / 45
Unmit.0.51 0.99 0.54 3.76 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.05 0.07 6.46 994 1,001 0.71 0.04 1.45 1,033

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 2.72 2.47 2.22 20.8 0.05 0.03 1.65 1.68 0.03 0.29 0.33 —5,051 5,051 0.24 0.23 18.8 5,145 Area 0.46 3.32 1.01 4.09 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 0.00 1,242 1,242 0.02 < 0.005 —1,243 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,124 1,124 0.10 0.01 —1,129 Water ———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Waste ———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Refrig.————————————————0.81 0.81
Total 3.24 5.82 3.74 25.2 0.06 0.16 1.65 1.80 0.15 0.29 0.45 39.0 7,510 7,549 4.29 0.25 19.6 7,752 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 2.54 2.29 2.38 17.5 0.05 0.03 1.65 1.68 0.03 0.29 0.33 —4,734 4,734 0.25 0.24 0.49 4,813 Area 0.11 2.99 0.97 0.41 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 0.00 1,232 1,232 0.02 < 0.005 —1,233 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,124 1,124 0.10 0.01 —1,129 Water ———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Waste ———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Refrig.————————————————0.81 0.81
Total 2.71 5.31 3.87 18.2 0.06 0.15 1.65 1.80 0.15 0.29 0.45 39.0 7,184 7,223 4.30 0.26 1.30 7,410 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 2.47 2.23 2.38 17.8 0.05 0.03 1.62 1.65 0.03 0.29 0.32 —4,697 4,697 0.25 0.24 7.95 4,782 Area 0.25 3.16 0.09 2.55 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.00 91.1 91.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —91.2Page 3078 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
11 / 45
Energy 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,124 1,124 0.10 0.01 —1,129 Water ———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Waste ———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Refrig.————————————————0.81 0.81
Total 2.78 5.42 2.98 20.6 0.05 0.08 1.62 1.70 0.08 0.29 0.37 39.0 6,006 6,045 4.27 0.26 8.77 6,237 Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.45 0.41 0.43 3.25 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.05 0.06 —778 778 0.04 0.04 1.32 792 Area 0.05 0.58 0.02 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.1 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —186 186 0.02 < 0.005 —187 Water ———————————0.86 15.5 16.3 0.09 < 0.005 —19.2
Waste ———————————5.60 0.00 5.60 0.56 0.00 —19.6
Refrig.————————————————0.13 0.13
Total 0.51 0.99 0.54 3.76 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.05 0.07 6.46 994 1,001 0.71 0.04 1.45 1,033

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

5.35 4.49 42.5 35.3 0.05 2.25 —2.25 2.07 —2.07 —5,529 5,529 0.22 0.04 —5,548

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
12 / 45
———————2.692.69—5.665.66——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.12 1.16 0.97 < 0.005 0.06 —0.06 0.06 —0.06 —151 151 0.01 < 0.005 —152 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.16 0.16 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —25.1 25.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —25.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —231 231 0.01 0.01 0.03 234 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Page 3080 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
13 / 45
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —6.42 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.02 2.53 23.1 20.6 0.03 1.33 —1.33 1.22 —1.22 —3,134 3,134 0.13 0.03 —3,144 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.29 2.29 —0.94 0.94 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —172 172 0.01 < 0.005 —172

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
14 / 45
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.13 0.13 —0.05 0.05 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —28.4 28.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —28.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.02 0.02 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 200 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 2.31 0.35 22.5 12.2 0.12 0.33 1.32 1.65 0.22 0.44 0.66 —17,607 17,607 1.94 2.83 0.96 18,500 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.02 1.25 0.66 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.04 —965 965 0.11 0.16 0.87 1,014 Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Page 3082 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
15 / 45
Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —160 160 0.02 0.03 0.14 168

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.55 1.30 12.2 14.2 0.03 0.54 —0.54 0.49 —0.49 —2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 —2,639 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.55 1.30 12.2 14.2 0.03 0.54 —0.54 0.49 —0.49 —2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 —2,639 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.98 0.82 7.67 8.97 0.02 0.34 —0.34 0.31 —0.31 —1,657 1,657 0.07 0.01 —1,663 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 0.15 1.40 1.64 < 0.005 0.06 —0.06 0.06 —0.06 —274 274 0.01 < 0.005 —275 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————Page 3083 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
16 / 45
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.11 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 —337 337 0.01 0.01 1.35 342 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —218 218 0.02 0.03 0.61 229 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.13 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 —309 309 0.01 0.01 0.03 313 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —218 218 0.02 0.03 0.02 228 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —197 197 0.01 0.01 0.37 200 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —137 137 0.01 0.02 0.16 144 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —32.7 32.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 33.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
17 / 45
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.01 0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 —0.39 0.36 —0.36 —1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 —1,517 Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.96 2.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.97 Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.49 Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 200 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
18 / 45
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 —0.35 0.32 —0.32 —1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 —1,517 Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.39 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —79.9 79.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —80.1 Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
19 / 45
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —1.72 1.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ——————————————————Page 3087 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
20 / 45
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.17 1.18 1.52 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.03 —0.03 —178 178 0.01 < 0.005 —179 Architect
ural
Coatings
—39.7 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —9.76 9.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.79 Architect
ural
Coatings
—2.17 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.62 1.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.62 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.40 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
21 / 45
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —60.5 60.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 61.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —3.36 3.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

2.72 2.47 2.22 20.8 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.12 —5,051 5,051 0.24 0.23 18.8 5,145

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
22 / 45
Total 2.72 2.47 2.22 20.8 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.12 —5,051 5,051 0.24 0.23 18.8 5,145 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

2.54 2.29 2.38 17.5 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.12 —4,734 4,734 0.25 0.24 0.49 4,813 Total 2.54 2.29 2.38 17.5 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.12 —4,734 4,734 0.25 0.24 0.49 4,813 Annual ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.45 0.41 0.43 3.25 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 —778 778 0.04 0.04 1.32 792 Total 0.45 0.41 0.43 3.25 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 —778 778 0.04 0.04 1.32 792

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————472 472 0.04 0.01 —475
Total ————————————472 472 0.04 0.01 —475
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————472 472 0.04 0.01 —475

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
23 / 45
Total ————————————472 472 0.04 0.01 —475
Annual ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————78.2 78.2 0.01 < 0.005 —78.7
Total ————————————78.2 78.2 0.01 < 0.005 —78.7

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —652 652 0.06 < 0.005 —654 Total 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —652 652 0.06 < 0.005 —654 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —652 652 0.06 < 0.005 —654 Total 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —652 652 0.06 < 0.005 —654 Annual ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —108 108 0.01 < 0.005 —108 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —108 108 0.01 < 0.005 —108

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
24 / 45

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.41 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 0.00 1,232 1,232 0.02 < 0.005 —1,233 Consum
er
Products
—2.71 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.22 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.35 0.33 0.04 3.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —9.86 9.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.89 Total 0.46 3.32 1.01 4.09 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 0.00 1,242 1,242 0.02 < 0.005 —1,243 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.11 0.06 0.97 0.41 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 0.00 1,232 1,232 0.02 < 0.005 —1,233 Consum
er
Products
—2.71 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.22 ————————————————
Total 0.11 2.99 0.97 0.41 0.01 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 0.00 1,232 1,232 0.02 < 0.005 —1,233 Annual ——————————————————
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —14.0

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
25 / 45
————————————————0.50—Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.04 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.12 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.12 Total 0.05 0.58 0.02 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.1

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Total ———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Total ———————————5.19 93.4 98.6 0.54 0.01 —116
Annual ——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
26 / 45
Single
Family
Housing
———————————0.86 15.5 16.3 0.09 < 0.005 —19.2
Total ———————————0.86 15.5 16.3 0.09 < 0.005 —19.2

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Total ———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Total ———————————33.8 0.00 33.8 3.38 0.00 —118
Annual ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
———————————5.60 0.00 5.60 0.56 0.00 —19.6
Total ———————————5.60 0.00 5.60 0.56 0.00 —19.6

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
27 / 45

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————————0.81 0.81
Total ————————————————0.81 0.81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————————0.81 0.81
Total ————————————————0.81 0.81
Annual ——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
————————————————0.13 0.13
Total ————————————————0.13 0.13

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
28 / 45
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
29 / 45

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
30 / 45
Total ——————————————————

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
31 / 45
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
32 / 45
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/2/2024 1/15/2024 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 1/16/2024 2/12/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/13/2024 12/30/2024 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 12/31/2024 1/27/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2025 2/24/2025 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
33 / 45

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 250 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 23.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 6.95 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 4.68 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
34 / 45
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 256,669 85,556 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation ——35.0 0.00 —
Grading 40,000 —50.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
35 / 45
Single Family Housing 0.72 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
614 616 551 220,846 5,883 5,908 5,285 2,117,470

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 59
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 7

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
36 / 45

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
256668.75 85,556 0.00 0.00 —

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 494,625 349 0.0330 0.0040 2,033,832

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 2,709,276 14,943,364

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)Page 3104 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
37 / 45
Single Family Housing 19.0 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
User Defined 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
38 / 45
——

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 19.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth Page 3106 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
39 / 45
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3 Page 3107 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
40 / 45
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 93.6
AQ-PM 98.2
AQ-DPM 45.9
Drinking Water 93.7
Lead Risk Housing 8.71
Pesticides 53.1
Toxic Releases 54.7
Traffic 84.6

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
41 / 45
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 22.9
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 65.2
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 13.0
Cardio-vascular 25.2
Low Birth Weights 53.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 13.1
Housing 44.5
Linguistic 29.5
Poverty 24.4
Unemployment 18.3

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 66.99602207
Employed 46.86256897
Median HI 74.75939946
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 73.18105993
High school enrollment 100

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
42 / 45
Preschool enrollment 38.32926986
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 10.9842166
Social —
2-parent households 76.08109842
Voting 82.47144874
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 79.69973053
Park access 5.607596561
Retail density 16.39933273
Supermarket access 34.96727833
Tree canopy 32.02874374
Housing —
Homeownership 78.53201591
Housing habitability 76.35057103
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 10.31695111 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 88.6179905
Uncrowded housing 74.48992686
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 59.70742974
Arthritis 21.6
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 28.2
Cancer (excluding skin)14.0
Asthma 72.9
Coronary Heart Disease 37.1

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
43 / 45
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 56.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 60.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 89.2
Cognitively Disabled 76.7
Physically Disabled 74.5
Heart Attack ER Admissions 86.7
Mental Health Not Good 79.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 74.1
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 69.2
Stroke 51.7
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 66.7
Current Smoker 80.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 73.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 75.0
Elderly 12.2
English Speaking 29.9
Foreign-born 43.9
Outdoor Workers 76.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 75.2
Traffic Density 79.1

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
44 / 45
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 23.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 84.6

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)37.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)64.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Taken from Site plan
Construction: Construction Phases OY 2025, used previous AQ report construction schedule Page 3112 of 3744

14896 Villa Serena Detailed Report, 10/13/2022
45 / 45
Construction: Off-Road Equipment T/L/B replaced with Crawler Tractor to accurately calculate disturbance for Site Preparation and Grading phases
Standard 8-hour work days
Operations: Vehicle Data Taken from ITE weekend trip rates LU 210 Operations: Hearths Woodstoves - Rule 445 no wood burning devices, Wood burning devices added to gas devices Operations: Refrigerants Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater.

V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT

U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA

R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024

\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank

R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024

V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT

U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA

\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) APPENDIX D-1

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT

U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA

R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024

\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Villa Serena Specific Plan (Tract No. 20245) Project
Prepared for:

City of Upland, Development Services Department
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786

Prepared by:

Aspen Environmental Group
615 N. Benson Avenue, Suite E
Upland, CA 91786

January 2023

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 ii
Contents

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

2.0 Project and Property Description ............................................................................................1

2.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................1

3.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 1

3.2 Field Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 General Biological Survey Results ...........................................................................................3

4.1 Vegetation and Cover Types ............................................................................................................ 3

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities ........................................................................................................ 4

4.3 Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................................................ 5

5.0 Special-Status Species Results ................................................................................................5

5.1 Special-Status Plants ...................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 13

5.3 Designated Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................ 17

5.4 Native Birds: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) / California Fish and Game Code ....................... 17

5.5 Wildlife Movement ........................................................................................................................ 17

6.0 Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................. 18

6.1 Vegetation and Cover Types .......................................................................................................... 18

6.2 Sensitive Natural Communities ...................................................................................................... 18

6.3 Wildlife Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 18

6.4 Special-Status Plants ...................................................................................................................... 18

6.5 Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 19

6.6 Native Birds: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) / California Fish and Game Code ....................... 19

6.7 Wildlife Movement ........................................................................................................................ 19

7.0 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 19

8.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 20

9.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 21 Tables
Table 1: Vegetation and Other Cover Types on the Project site…………………………………….…………………………………………………………. 3 Table 2. Definitions of Special-Status Species .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Attachments
Attachment 1: Figures
Figure 1: Project Overview
Figure 2: Vegetation and Land Cover
Figure 3: Biological Resources

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

i January 2023
Attachment 2: CNDDB Query Results
Attachment 3: IPaC Resource List
Attachment 4: Special-Status Species Not Addressed
Attachment 5: Project Species List
Attachment 6: Project Photos
Appendices
Appendix A: San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment for a 19- acre parcel located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

1 January 2023

1.0 Introduction
This report was prepared by Aspen Environmental Group (Aspen) to describe the biological resources at the Villa Serena Specific Plan (Tract No. 20245) Project (project). The project is located within 15th Street Basin within the City of Upland, California. The Colonies Partners, LLC. proposes to develop approximately

9.16 acres of the property and construct 65 houses. Throughout this report, “project” refers to the proposed residential development of a portion of 15th Street Basin, while “project site” refers to all areas that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities as well as a larger survey area that encompasses 15th Street Basin. This report provides baseline information on biological resources to support the regulatory review and permitting process.

2.0 Project and Property Description

2.1 Project Description
The Colonies Partners, LLC proposes to construct 65 single-family residential dwellings on 9.16 acres of the existing 20.3-acre 15th Street Basin. In addition to the residential dwellings, the project will also construct a community pool, pool house, restrooms, picnic tables, and utility connections. The total impact area included in this report is 22.1 acres which includes temporary impact areas and additional improvements to infrastructure beyond the limits of 15th Street Basin. Approximately 4.3 acres of 15th Street Basin will remain as a functioning flood control basin and will be excavated to increase its storage capacity. The basin will also be preserved and enhanced to off-set the loss of riparian and wetland vegetation.

2.2 Project Location
The project is approximately 22.1-acres and is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Fernando Avenue and E. 15th Street in the City of Upland, California (APN: 3105-171-08). The project site is located in Section 23, Township 1 South, Range 5 West (USGS Ontario, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle) (Figure 1, Attachment 1). The project site is surrounded by existing single family residential housing developments to the south, east, and west with Upland hills Country Club to the north. Dry Dock Depot Boat and RV Storage and Sothern California Edison Padua Station are located to the southwest and northwest of Campus Avenue.

3.0 Methods

3.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting field surveys, Aspen biologists reviewed available literature to identify special-status biological resources known from the vicinity of the project site. The literature and databases listed below were reviewed.
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) for the project site (USFWS 2022).
 CNDDB (CDFW 2022a) for the following 7.5-minute USGS topographic quads within 5-miles of the project: Mt. Baldy, Ontario, Glendora, San Dimas, Guasti, Cucamonga Peak, Yorba Linda, Prado Dam, and Corona North.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 2
 CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2022), for the same topographic quads.
 General Biological Resources Assessment, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, APN: 3105-171- 08 (RCA Associates, Inc., 2022).

The CNDDB results are listed in Attachment 2 and the IPaC Resource List is provided as Attachment 3.

Several special-status species identified during the literature review only occur in specialized native habitats that are absent from the project site or occur at higher or lower elevations. These plants and animals are listed in Attachment 4 but are not addressed further in this report.

3.2 Field Surveys
Field surveys were conducted on January 25, February 16, March 16, April 3, and April 22, 2022, by RCA Associate, Inc. biologists, to evaluate project impacts to vegetation and wildlife species. Aspen biologists Justin Wood and Jacob Aragon visited the project site on June 24 and August 15, 2022, to conduct a focused botanical survey, map vegetation, and conduct general wildlife surveys. Lastly, permitted biologist Mikael Romich, of Origin Biological conducted a habitat assessment for California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat on the project site on June 3 and July 1, 2022 (see Appendix A).

During the surveys, biologists conducted 100 percent coverage biological survey of the project site. During the field surveys, all plant and wildlife species observed were recorded in field notes and special-status species locations were recorded using hand-held GPS units. All plant and wildlife species observed during the surveys are listed in Attachment 5. Representative site photos were captured during the survey and are included in Attachment 6.

The botanical surveys were conducted in conformance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines (CDFW 2018). The surveys were (a) conducted during flowering seasons for the special status plants known from the area, (b) floristic in nature, (c) consistent with conservation ethics, (d) systematically covered all habitat types on the sites, and (e) well documented by this report and by voucher specimens to be deposited at California Botanic Garden (formerly Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden) and other herbaria. Plants of uncertain identity were collected and identified later using keys, descriptions, and illustrations in Baldwin et al. (2012).

Vegetation mapping was done by drawing tentative boundaries onto high-resolution aerial images during site visit on June 24, 2022. These boundaries were then digitized into Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles. Vegetation maps were field verified for accuracy on August 15, 2022 (see Attachment 1; Figure 2: Vegetation and Land Cover). Vegetation within the project site is further described below using the names and descriptions in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009). Vegetation was mapped digitally using ArcGIS (version 10.7) and one-foot pixel aerial imagery. The smallest mapping unit was approximately 0.05-acre and most mapped vegetation boundaries are accurate to within approximately 5-ft. Any vegetation map is subject to imprecision for several reasons:

1. Vegetation types tend to intergrade on the landscape so that there are no true boundaries in the vegetation itself. In these cases, a mapped boundary represents best professional judgment.

2. Vegetation types as they are named and described tend to intergrade; that is, a given stand of real-world vegetation may not fit into any named type in the classification scheme used. Thus, a mapped and labeled polygon is given the best name available in the classification, but this name does not imply that the vegetation unambiguously matches its mapped name.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

3 January 2023

3. Vegetation tends to be patchy. Small patches of one named type are often included within mapped polygons of another type. The size of these patches varies, depending on the minimum mapping units and scale of available aerial imagery.

Rainfall: Rainfall is greatest during the months of November through March, with an average annual precipitation total of 17.16 inches, as reported in north Claremont, approximately 4 miles west of the project site (Los Angeles County 2022). Rainfall to-date has been lower than average with approximately

14.33 inches falling in the region since October 2, 2021 (Los Angeles County 2022).

4.0 General Biological Survey Results

4.1 Vegetation and Cover Types
Vegetation within the project site consists of riparian and wetland vegetation, upland vegetation, and other land cover types. Some of the native species observed include mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), marsh purslane (Ludwigia peploides), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coastal sage brush (Artemisia californica), scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). The vegetation and land covers within the project site are described in detail below and acreages of the vegetation and land cover types are presented in Table 1 and shown in Figures 2 (Attachment 1).

Riparian and Wetland Vegetation Types
Cattail marshes (Typha (angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia) Herbaceous Alliance). Cattail marshes are wetland vegetation that is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Additional species such as marsh purslane (Ludwigia peploides), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), seep monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and Spanish sunflower (Pulicaria paludosa) are also present. Cattail marshes are present in the low-lying portions of the project site that accumulate runoff and storm flows from the adjacent golf course and watershed. Cattail marshes have a State rank of S5 and are therefore not recognized as a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2022c).

Mulefat thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance). Mulefat thickets are a winter deciduous shrubland that are dominated by mulefat. Additional species such as Gooding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii), Chinese elms (Ulmus parvifolia), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) are also present. The mulefat thickets are present within the Conservation Area, along the northern and southern Table 1. Vegetation and Other Cover Types on the Project Site (acres) Vegetation Type
Development Area
(Acres)
Conservation Area
(Acres)
Project Site
(Acres)
California buckwheat scrub 5.39 2.55 7.94
Cattail marshes 0.08 0.18 0.25
Eucalyptus - tree of heaven - black locust groves 0.89 0.64 1.53 Mulefat scrub -- 0.17 0.17
Scale broom scrub 0.14 -- 0.14
Other Cover Types
Developed 11.30 0.74 12.04
Total 17.79 4.29 22.08

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 4
edges of the basin floor. Mulefat thickets have a State Rank of S4 and are therefore not recognized as a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2022c).

Upland Vegetation Types
California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance). California buckwheat scrub is a type of coastal sage scrub dominated by California buckwheat. Other species such as pine bush (Ericameria pinifolia), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides), coastal sage brush, black sage , showy penstemon (Penstemon spectabilis), and holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) are also present. California buckwheat scrub is the most common native vegetation within the project site and most of it is in the Conservation Area. California buckwheat scrub has a State rank of S5 and are therefore not recognized as a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2022c).

Eucalyptus - tree of heaven - black locust groves (Eucalyptus spp. - Ailanthus altissima - Robinia pseudoacacia Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance). Eucalyptus - tree of heaven - black locust groves are used to map all vegetation dominated by non-native trees within the project site including gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), goldenrain tree (Koelreuteria bipinnata), and others. Native tree species such as California sycamore and coast live oak are also present but generally represent single trees and not a continuous canopy. Eucalyptus - tree of heaven - black locust groves have a State Rank of SNA (Not Applicable) and are therefore not recognized as a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2022c).

Scale broom scrub (Lepidospartum squamatum Shrubland Alliance). Scale broom scrub is a type of alluvial fan sage scrub or coastal sage scrub dominated by scale broom. Other species such as California buckwheat and deerweed (Acmispon glaber) are also present in low numbers. Scale broom scrub is present on one slope within the Development Area. It is likely a remnant stand of a vegetation type that was once much more common in the region. Scale broom scrub has a State Rank of S3 and is therefore recognized as a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2022c).

Other Cover Types
Developed. This cover type includes disturbed and developed areas within the project site including unpaved roads, drainage structures, and the unvegetated slopes and basin floors. Sparse vegetation is present and includes weedy species such as wild oat (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus rubens), mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). Developed is not a vegetation type and is therefore not described in A Manual of California Vegetation and is also not recognized as a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2022c).

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive vegetation communities are defined by CDFW (2018) as, “...communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” The literature review identified ten sensitive vegetation communities recorded near the project site. These include canyon live oak ravine forest, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, southern willow scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, California walnut woodland, walnut forests (CDFW 2022a). Of these, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is the only one present on the project site and is mapped as scale broom scrub, an equivalent vegetation described above.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

5 January 2023

4.3 Wildlife Habitat
The term habitat refers to the environment and ecological conditions where a species is found. Wildlife habitat is often described in terms of vegetation, though a more thorough explanation includes detail such as availability or proximity to water, suitable nesting or denning sites, shade, foraging perches, cover sites to escape from predators, soils that are suitable for burrowing or hiding, proximity of noise and disturbance, and other factors that are unique to each species. For many wildlife species, vegetation reflects important components of habitat, including regional climate, physical structure, and biological productivity and food resources. Thus, the vegetation descriptions in Section 4.1 are useful overarching descriptors for wildlife habitat.

Wildlife and wildlife sign observed during the field surveys included species common in the region, such western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), coyote (Canis latrans), and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Other common wildlife species that were not observed but are likely to be present include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), common yellow throat (Geothlypis trichas), Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), western toads (Anaxyrus boreas), bobcats (Lynx rufus), racoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and numerous small mammals and invertebrates. Two special-status wildlife species were observed or otherwise detected during the surveys and are discussed below in Section 5.0.

5.0 Special-Status Species Results
Based on review of the literature and databases listed above, and on local expertise with the flora and fauna of the project site, lists of special-status plants and wildlife with potential to occur on the project site or in the project vicinity were compiled (Table 3). Plant and wildlife taxa were considered to be special-status species if they were classified in one or more of the categories listed in Table 2. All special-status plants and wildlife occurring in the region in habitats similar to those found on the project site are addressed in Table 3, with brief descriptions of habitat and distribution, conservation status, and probability of occurrence on the site.

Table 2. Definitions of Special-Status Species
Species Designation Agency Definition
Federal Endangered USFWS A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Federal Threatened USFWS A species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Federal Candidate USFWS A species the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has designated as a candidate for listing under Section 4 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), published in its annual candidate review, and defined as a species that has sufficient information on its biological status and threats to propose it as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Federal Proposed USFWS A species that the USFWS has proposed for listing under Section 4 of the ESA, by publishing a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 6
Table 2. Definitions of Special-Status Species
Species Designation Agency Definition
Protected under the federal
Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA)
USFWS Bald and golden eagles are protected from take, including harassment, except as permitted by USFWS.

State Endangered CDFW A species that is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range due to one or more causes, including loss or change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.

State Threatened CDFW A species that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts.

State Candidate CDFW A species that has been officially noticed by the California Fish and Game Commission as being under review by the CDFW for addition to the threatened or endangered species lists. CDFW candidate species are given no extra-legal protection under state laws.

Fully Protected CDFW Animal species fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW may not issue take authorization except for scientific purposes or as provided under SB 618 (2011).

Species of Special Concern CDFW A species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:

Is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role.

Is on the federal, but not state list, of threatened or endangered species.

Meets the state definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed.

Is experiencing or formerly experienced serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; or Has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s) that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.

This is an administrative designation and carries no formal legal status. This designation is intended to focus attention on animals at conservation risk, to stimulate research on poorly known species, and to achieve conservation and recovery before these species meet the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) criteria for listing. California Species of Special Concern are considered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and require a discussion of impacts and appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts.

Watch List CDFW Taxa that were previously Species of Special Concern, but no longer merit that status or which do not meet criteria for designation as Species of Special Concern, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status.

Special Animal CDFW An animal species that is tracked in the CNDDB but has no other status at the state or federal level.

California Rare Plant Rank
(CRPR) 1A
CDFW Plants presumed to be extinct in California.

CRPR 1B CDFW Plants rare or endangered in California and elsewhere.

CRPR 2A CDFW Plants presumed extinct in California but more common elsewhere.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

7 January 2023
Table 2. Definitions of Special-Status Species
Species Designation Agency Definition
CRPR 2B CDFW Plants rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

CRPR 3 CDFW Plants about which more information is needed – a review list.

CRPR 4 CDFW Plants of limited distribution – a watch list.

Plants or wildlife may be ranked as special-status species due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain species have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Others have not been listed, but declining populations or habitat availability cause concern for their long-term viability. These species of conservation concern appear on lists compiled by resource agencies or private conservation organizations. In this report, “special-status species” includes all plants and wildlife listed as threatened or endangered or included in these other compilations. All special-status plants and wildlife occurring in the region in habitats similar to those found on the project site are addressed in Table 3, with brief descriptions of habitat and distribution, conservation status, and probability of occurrence on the site.

Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed
Species Name Habitat Requirements
Flowering
or Activity
Season
Conservation
Status Potential to Occur
PLANTS
Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry
A shrub native to California, riparian,
coastal sage scrub and chaparral. 230-
2,705 ft elev. Santa Barbara, Ventura,
Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial
Cos.

Mar-Jun Fed: END
CA: 1B.1

Low: suitable habitat
is present, known
several locations in
Claremont about 4.5
miles northwest of the
project site.

Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's mariposa-lily

Perennial herb (bulb); chaparral,
alluvial fans, pine forest, below about
5600 ft. elev.; widespread but
uncommon throughout S. Calif. mts.,
foothills & valleys.

May–Jul Fed: None
CA: S4, 4.2

Low: suitable habitat
is present, known
several locations in
Claremont about 4.5
miles northwest of the
project site.

Calystegia felix
Lucky morning-glory
Annual herb; alkaline meadows,
riparian scrub. 100-700 ft elev.; Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and
Riverside Cos.

Mar-Sep Fed: None
CA: S1, 1B.1
Low: Marginally
suitable wetland
habitat present,
nearest known
occurrence about 8
miles to the south.

Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry’s spineflower
Annual herb, dry slopes and flats in
coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodlands. 295-4000 ft. elev.: Ventura,
Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Riverside and San Diego Cos.

Apr-Jun Fed: None
CA: S2, 1B.1
Moderate: Marginally
suitable habitat
present, nearest
known occurrence
about 5 miles to the
west and east.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 8
Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed
Species Name Habitat Requirements
Flowering
or Activity
Season
Conservation
Status Potential to Occur
Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
Mesa horkelia
Perennial herb; shrublands, woodlands;
sandy soils, away from immediate
coast; San Luis Obispo to San Diego
Co., rarely inland to San Bernardino
Co.; about 200-2700 ft. elev.

Apr–Sep Fed: None
CA: S1, 1B.1

Low: Marginally
suitable habitat
present, about 4.2
miles from nearest
known occurrence.

Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
Perennial grass-like herb; mesic sites,
alkali seeps, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, wetlands and non-wetlands.
<1640 ft elev. Santa Barbara down to
San Diego Cos.

Jun-Aug Fed: None
CA: S3 2B.1
Low: Marginally
suitable wetland
habitat present,
nearest known
occurrence about 20
miles to the east.

Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s pepper-grass
Annual herb; dry soils in chaparral,
coastal sage scrub. 5-2,902 ft. elev.;
Ventura, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles,
Mono, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego Cos.

Jan-Jul Fed: None
CA: S3, 4.3
Moderate: Marginally
suitable habitat
present, nearest
known occurrence
about 5 miles to the
west and east.

Juglans californica
Southern California black
walnut
A native, dicot tree occurring in
southern oak woodlands from 165-
2,955 ft elev; Santa Barbara, Ventura,
Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Orange, Riverside and San Diego Cos.

Mar-Aug Fed: None
CA: S4, 4.2
Moderate: Marginally
suitable habitat
present, nearest
known occurrence
about 3 miles to the
west.

Pseudognaphalium
luecocephalum
White rabbit-tobacco

Perennial herb, sandy or gravelly
benches, dry stream and canyon
bottoms of chaparral and coastal sage
scrub. 0-6,890 ft. elev.; Ventura, Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside,
Orange and San Diego Cos.

Aug-Nov Fed: None
CA: S2, 2B.2

Low: Marginally
suitable habitat
present, more than 5
miles from nearest
known occurrence.

Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford’s arrowhead
Perennial herb (rhizomatous) occurring
in wetlands, freshwater marshes,
riparian. 0-2,135 ft. elev.; Los Angeles,
Orange and San Bernardino Cos.

Mar-Oct Fed: None
CA: S3, 1B.2

Low: Marginally
suitable wetland
habitat present,
nearest known
occurrence about 3
miles to the
northeast.

INVERTEBRATES
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee

Colonial insect; open grassland and
scrub; underground colonies, often in old
rodent burrows. Many food plants
including Chaenactis, Lupinus, Phacelia,
Salvia, and Eriogonum. Much of southern
and central CA, SW Nevada and Baja.

Spring –
Summer
Fed: None
CA: S1S2 Moderate: Suitable
habitat and food
plants present;
historical records from
within about 2 miles.

Danaus plexippus pop. 1
Monarch – California
overwintering population
Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water sources
nearby. Closed-cone coniferous forest
Year-round Fed: CAN
CA: S2
High; not observed,
likely to be present
however they are
unlikely to overwinter
this far inland.

REPTILES

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

9 January 2023
Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed
Species Name Habitat Requirements
Flowering
or Activity
Season
Conservation
Status Potential to Occur
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern California legless
lizard
Generally, south of the Transverse
Range, south to NW Baja Calif. Sandy or
loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation; soils typically have high
moisture content.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC Low: Marginally
suitable habitat
present, nearest
known occurrence
about 5 miles.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
Coastal whiptail
Found in deserts and semi-arid areas with
sparse vegetation and open areas. Also
found in woodland & riparian areas.

Coastal Calif., Transverse, and Peninsular
ranges, south to Baja Calif.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC Present. Three
individuals observed
in the project site.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard Forest, shrubland or grassland; sandy soils; W Calif. from LA Co S through N
Baja Calif., below about 6000 ft. elev.

Spring –
Summer
Fed: None
CA: S3S4,
CSC

Low: Minimally
suitable habitat
present, historical
records from within
about 2 miles.

BIRDS
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
Nests in forest and woodland, hunts in
woods and open areas; breeds through
most of US, winters south through
Mexico
Year-round Fed: None
CA: S4
(nesting), WL
Moderate (nesting):

Present (foraging);
suitable nesting
habitat present;1
individual observed
foraging within the
project site.

Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
Highly colonial species; requires open
water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging areas with insect prey within a
few kilometers of colony.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: THR,
S1S2, CSC
Low (nesting):

Moderate (foraging);
limited nesting
habitat; historical
records from within
about 5 miles.

Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Coastal sage scrub, open chaparral; S
Calif. and NW Baja Calif.; not migratory
Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, WL
Moderate: Suitable
habitat present;
historical records
from within about 5
miles.

Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle
Nests in remote trees and cliffs; forages
over shrublands and grasslands; breeds
throughout W N America, winters to E
coast
Year-round Fed: Eagle
Protection Act
CA: S3, FP
Minimal (nesting),
Low (foraging); no
suitable nesting
habitat, minimal
suitable foraging
habitat present.

Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl
Nests mainly in rodent burrows, usually
in open grassland or shrubland; forages
in open habitat; increasingly uncommon
in S Calif.; through W US and Mexico
Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC
Moderate suitable
habitat present,
historical records
from within about 2
miles.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 10
Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed
Species Name Habitat Requirements
Flowering
or Activity
Season
Conservation
Status Potential to Occur
Buteo swainsonii
Swainson's hawk
Breeds in open habitats (e.g., grassland),
Central Valley and W Mojave Desert
(Calif.) and east to cent. US, S. Canada,
New Mexico; winters in S America
Spring –
Summer
Fed: None
CA: THR, S3
Minimal (nesting),
Moderate (foraging);
no suitable nesting
habitat, suitable
foraging habitat
present during
migration only.

Elanus leucurus
White-tailed kite
Typically nests at lower elevations in
riparian trees, including oaks, willows,
and cottonwoods; forages over open
country. Throughout much of
cismontane California.

Spring –
Summer Fed: None
CA: S3S4, FP
Minimal (nesting);
Moderate (foraging);
no suitable nesting
habitat; marginal
foraging habitat,
known within 5 miles.

Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
Open, flat lands incl. sparse sagebrush or
grassland, meadows, alkali flats; wide
elev. range; breeds in western Calif (San
Diego Co through Humboldt Co) and Baja
Calif; winters in same range.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S4, WL
Low (nesting);
Moderate (foraging);
Minimally suitable
nesting habitat,
marginal foraging
habitat present.

Falco columbarius
Merlin
Uncommon wintering species in S Calif.
desert and valleys (breeds in northern
N America and Eurasia).

Winter Fed: None
CA: S3S4, WL
(winter)
Minimal (nesting):

Low (foraging);
nesting habitat
absent known to
winter in the region.

Icteria virens
Yellow-breasted chat
Inhabits riparian thickets of willow and
other brushy tangles near water
courses; nests in low, dense riparian
vegetation; nests and forages within 10
feet of ground.

Spring –
Summer
Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC
Moderate: suitable
habitat present,
known from within 0.7
miles of the project
site.

Polioptila californica
californica
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Primarily coastal sage scrub below
about 2,000 feet elev.; southwestern
California, Ventura County to northern
Baja California; inland to San Gorgonio
Pass area (e.g., Banning)
Year-round Fed: THR
CA: S2, CSC
Low: marginally
suitable habitat is
present, nearest
record is about 5
miles west.

Setophaga petechia
Yellow warbler
Breeds in willow and cottonwood
riparian habitat, near sea level to 9000
ft. elev.; much of N Amer.; sensitive in
S Calif. due to habitat loss & cowbird
parasitism; winters Mexico to S Amer.

Spring –
Summer
Fed: None
CA: S3S4, CSC
(nesting)

Moderate: suitable
habitat present,
known from within
less than 0.5 miles of
the project site.

Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo
Summer resident of southern California
in low riparian habitats in vicinity of water
or dry river bottoms; found below 2000
ft; nests placed along margins of bushes
or on twigs projecting into pathways,
usually willow, mesquite, and mulefat.

Spring–Fall Fed: END
CA: END, S2

Low: suitable habitat
present, known from
Cucamonga Basin
approximately 0.7
miles north of the
project site.

MAMMALS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

11 January 2023
Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed
Species Name Habitat Requirements
Flowering
or Activity
Season
Conservation
Status Potential to Occur
Antrozous pallidus
Pallid bat
Desert, grassland, shrubland,
woodland, forest; most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting.

Spring –
Summer Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC
Minimal (roosting);
Low (foraging).

Suitable foraging
habitat is present;
suitable roosting
habitat is absent.

Eumops perotis
californicus
Western mastiff bat
Lowlands (with rare exceptions); cent.
and S Calif., S Ariz., NM, SW Tex., N
Mexico; roost in deep rock crevices,
forage over wide area.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3S4, CSC
Minimal (roosting):

Low (foraging):
suitable roosting
habitat absent,
marginally suitable
foraging habitat
present.

Lasiurus cinereus
Hoary bat
Prefers deciduous and coniferous
woodlands, primarily roosts in tree
foliage. Widespread throughout most of
North America into Central America.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S4
Minimal (roosting):

Low (foraging):
suitable roosting
habitat absent,
marginally suitable
foraging habitat
present.

Lasiurus xanthinus
Western yellow bat
Roosts in trees, particularly palms.

Forages over water and trees in valley
foothill riparian, desert riparian,
washes. Southern California, Mexico
and Central America.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC

Minimal (roosting):

Low (foraging):
suitable roosting
habitat absent,
marginally suitable
foraging habitat
present.

Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Arid regions with short grass,
agricultural fields, and sparse coastal
sage scrub. Western United States
from Washington to Southern
California, east to Nebraska and Texas.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3S4
Low: suitable habitat
present, historical
records from within
about 5 miles.

Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
Widespread in CA, uncommon in
deserts, many habitats, sea level to
3300 m (11,000 ft), but uncommon
above 2560 m (8000 ft); feeds over
open water.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S4
Minimal (roosting):

Low (foraging):
suitable roosting
habitat absent,
marginally suitable
foraging habitat
present.

Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat
Coastal scrub with a moderate to
dense canopies preferred. Particularly
abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs,
and slopes. So. California from San
Diego to San Luis Obispo Cos.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3S4, CSC
Moderate: suitable
habitat is present,
nearest known
occurrence is within
about 2 miles of the
project site.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
Pocketed tree-tailed bat
Variety of arid areas, pine-juniper
woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis,
desert wash, desert riparian. Rocky
areas with high cliffs.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC
Minimal (roosting):

Low (foraging):
suitable roosting
habitat absent,
marginally suitable
foraging habitat
present.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

January 2023 12
Table 3. Special-Status Species Addressed
Species Name Habitat Requirements
Flowering
or Activity
Season
Conservation
Status Potential to Occur
Nyctinomops macrotis
Big free-tailed bat
Primarily desert bats, roosts in crevices
of cliffs and rocky outgroups.

Southwestern United States and
western Mexico.

Year-round Fed: None
CA: S3, CSC
Minimal (roosting):

Low (foraging):
suitable roosting
habitat absent,
marginally suitable
foraging habitat
present.

General references (botany): Baldwin et al., 2012; CDFW, 2022a; CDFW, 2022b; CNPS, 2022; and CCH, 2022. General references (wildlife):

American Ornithologists Union, 1998 (including supplements through 2013); Barbour and Davis, 1969; Ebird.org, 2022; Feldhamer et al., 2003; Garrett and Dunn, 1981; Hall, 1981; Jennings and Hayes, 1994; Stebbins, 2003; Wilson and Ruff, 1999; and Zeiner et al., 1990.

Conservation Status
Federal designations (Fed): (federal ESA, USFWS).

END: Federally listed, endangered.

THR: Federally listed, threatened.

Candidate: Sufficient data are available to support federal listing, but not yet listed.

Proposed: Formally proposed for the federal status shown.

BGEPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
DEL: Delisted
State designations (CA): (CESA, CDFW)
END: State listed, endangered.

THR: State listed, threatened.

CAND. Sufficient data are available to support federal listing, but not yet listed.

RARE: State listed as rare (applied only to certain plants).

CSC: California Species of Special Concern. Considered vulnerable to extinction due to declining numbers, limited geographic ranges, or ongoing threats.

WL: Species that were either previously listed as SC and have not been state listed under CESA; or were previously state or feder ally listed and now are on neither list; or are on the list of “Fully Protected” species.

FP: Fully protected. May not be taken or possessed without permit from CDFW.

CDFW Natural Diversity Data Base Designations: Applied to special-status plants and sensitive plant communities; where correct category is uncertain, CDFW uses two categories or question marks.

S1: Fewer than 6 occurrences or fewer than 1000 individuals or less than 2000 acres.

S1.1: Very threatened
S1.2: Threatened
S1.3: No current threats known
S2: 6-20 occurrences or 1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres (decimal suffixes same as above).

S3: 21-100 occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000-50,000 acres (decimal suffixes same as above).

S4: Apparently secure in California; this rank is clearly lower than S3 but factors exist to cause some concern, i.e., there is some threat or somewhat narrow habitat. No threat rank.

S5: Demonstrably secure or ineradicable in California. No threat rank.

SH: All California occurrences historical (i.e., no records in > 20 years).

SX: Presumed extirpated in California.

California Rare Plant Rank designations. Note: According to the California Native Plant Society ( http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php) , plants ranked as CRPR 1A, 1B, and 2 meet definitions as threatened or endangered and are eligible for state listing. That interpretation of the state Endangered Species Act is not in general use. 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. 2A: Plants presumed extinct in California but more common elsewhere in their range. 2B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range. 3: Plants about which we need more information; a review list. 4: Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.

California Rare Plant Rank Threat designation extensions:
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)