Upland City Council
June 9, 2025

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

13 January 2023
Definitions of occurrence probability: Estimated occurrence probabilities are based on literature sources cited earlier, field surveys, and habitat analyses reported here.

Present: Observed on the site by qualified biologists.

High: Habitat is a type often utilized by the species and the site is within the known range of the species.

Moderate: Site is within the known range of the species and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used.

Low: Site is within the species’ known range but habitat is rarely used, or the species was not found during focused surveys covering less than 100% of potential habitat or completed in marginal seasons.

Minimal: No suitable habitat on the site; or well outside the species’ known elevational or geographic ranges; or a focused study covering 100% of all suitable habitat, completed during the appropriate season and during a year of appropriate rainfall, did not detect the species.

5.1 Special-Status Plants

5.1.1 Listed Threatened or Endangered Plants
This section describes plant species reported from the region that are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA or CESA and are present or have a potential to be present on the project site. Several listed plant species were identified during the literature review but none of these species were observed or found to have at least a moderate potential to occur. No listed plant species are known from the project site, and none were observed during the surveys described in this report.

5.1.2 Other Special-Status Plants
In addition to the federal and state endangered species regulations noted above, CDFW and CNPS maintain lists of plants of conservation concern. The CDFW compiles these species including CDFW and CNPS rankings as CRPR 1, 2, 3, or 4 in its compendium of “Special Plants” (CDFW 2022b). These plants are treated here as “special-status species” and are discussed below.

Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi). Parry’s spineflower has a CRPR of 1B.1 (CDFW, 2022a). It is an annual herb in the buckwheat (Polygonaceae) family. Parry’s spineflower is endemic to southern California and occurs in Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties.

It is found on sandy or rocky soils in coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and alley and foothill grassland at elevations from 900 to 4,000 feet, and flowers from April to June (CNPS, 2022). Suitable habitat is present throughout much of the project site. Parry’s spineflower is known from several extinct occurrences within about 5 miles of the project site. There is a low to moderate potential for this species to germinate and be present in the project site in a year with above average rainfall.

California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4 Species. Two CRPR 4 species (i.e., a “watch list,” not indicating rarity) have at least a moderate potential to occur. These include southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) and Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii). Both of these species are known from within five miles of the project site.

5.2 Special-Status Wildlife

5.2.1 Listed Threatened or Endangered Wildlife
This section includes species listed as threatened or endangered under CESA or FESA which were detected or have a high potential to be present on the project site. No listed wildlife species are known from the project site, and none were observed during the surveys described in this report. Three listed species and one candidate species have at least a moderate potential to be present and are discussed below.

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

January 2023 14
Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusilus). Least Bell’s vireo is listed as endangered under both the FESA and the CESA (CDFW 2022a). It is a small songbird that nests in riparian vegetation throughout much of southern California. Least Bell’s vireo were once widespread in southern California, but their range was greatly reduced due to parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds concurrent with development of riparian habitats. Least Bell’s vireo are known to nest at Cucamonga Basin, approximately 0.7 miles north of the project site. Suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo is present on the project site and there is a low potential to be present. Protocol-level surveys were not completed as part of this report however multiple visits by qualified least Bell’s vireo biologists were completed during the nesting season and no least Bell’s vireo were detected.

Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Coastal California gnatcatcher is listed as threatened under the FESA (CDFW 2022a). Its geographic range is primarily coastal southern California from Ventura County, inland to the Santa Clarita area, Banning area, and southward through northwestern Baja California. Its habitat is coastal sage scrub largely composed of California sagebrush, California buckwheat, and other low-growing, drought-deciduous shrubs. Coastal California gnatcatcher were once widespread in the region but are now very limited. They are now restricted to areas with larger, intact patches of coastal sage scrub such as near Puddingstone Reservoir and within the North Etiwanda Preserve, both more than 7 miles from the project site. Coastal California gnatcatcher have a low potential to be present on the project site. The nearest designated critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher is near Puddingstone Reservoir, about 7 miles to the west (USFWS 2007b).

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Swainson’s hawks are listed as threatened under the CESA (CDFW 2022a). In California, they nest in the San Joaquin Valley, western Antelope Valley, and Owens Valley. They migrate to South America every fall and return to California every spring. Swainson’s hawks migrate along the Pacific flyway, and several have been observed in the vicinity of the project site during migration.

Several Swainson’s hawks have been reported from the region during migration (eBird.org 2022). The project site is well outside of the breeding range, but Swainson’s hawks may migrate over the area biannually. Swainson’s hawks have a moderate potential to be present during migration.

Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Tricolored blackbird is listed as threatened under the CESA (CDFW, 2022a). It is a highly colonial species that is nearly endemic to California. They have a fairly wide range in central and northern California but in southern California are much more restricted. They nest in emergent marshland vegetation such as cattails (Typha sp.) and tules (Schoenoplectus sp.). It has been observed at Puddingstone Reservoir and throughout the Chino Basin (CDFW 2022a, eBird.org 2022). It has not been observed on the project site, but the project site does provide limited nesting habitat and suitable foraging habitat. There is a moderate potential for tricolored blackbirds to forage on the project site and a low potential for nesting within the Conservation Area.

Monarch (Danaus plexippus pop. 1). Overwintering populations of monarch in California are a candidate for federal listing under the ESA. The listing would only protect these overwintering sites and not individual butterflies or their food plants. Monarch and their food plants are widespread in California and although milkweed was not seen on the project site, monarchs have a high potential to be present. Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico and roosts are generally located in wind-protected tree groves. The project site is likely too far inland to support winter roosting habitat.

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

15 January 2023

5.2.2 Species Protected Under the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d; BGEPA) prohibits take of bald eagles and golden eagles. The BGEPA defines take to include “pursuing, shooting, shooting at, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting, and disturbing.” The USFWS (2007a) further defines disturb as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” Both bald eagle and golden eagle are observed periodically in the region but are not expected to utilize the project site for nesting because no nesting habitat is present. Bald eagles are not expected to forage on the site because of a lack of suitable prey items and golden eagles have a low potential to forage on the site given the small area of the project site and the limited amount of prey items.

5.2.3 California Wildlife Species of Special Concern
Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri). Coastal whiptail are found in coastal southern California, mostly west of the Peninsular Ranges and south of the Transverse Ranges. There range extends north into Ventura County and south to Baja California. The coastal whiptail occurs in a variety of habitats including various upland and riparian habitats. It is most commonly associated with areas of dense vegetation but is also found around sandy areas along gravelly arroyos or washes (Stebbins 2003). Coastal whiptail were observed at three locations within the project site and are expected to occur throughout the project site.

Two of the observations were within the proposed development area and the other was within the portions of 15th Street Basin that will remaining as open space (Figure 3, Attachment 1).

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Burrowing owl are uncommon throughout much of southern California with the highest densities occurring near agricultural lands in the Imperial Valley. Burrowing owl have been extirpated from portions of Orange County because of development. Burrowing owl are still periodically observed in the Inland Empire with the highest local concentrations near Ontario, approximately 5 miles southeast of the project site. Suitable burrowing owl burrows are present on the project site but limited. The habitat at the project site is marginally suitable for this species, but with a sufficient prey base, and an abundant ground squirrel population (for producing burrows), there is a moderate potential for breeding or wintering burrowing owls to be present on the site.

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). Yellow-breasted chat is a migratory species, occurring in California only during the breeding season which is typically between April and August. In California, it primarily breeds in the northern portion of the state and is scarce in the central and southern portions. It typically utilizes dense riparian thickets and brushy tangles near watercourses for breeding (CDFW 2022a). Yellow- breasted chat are known to nest at Cucamonga Basin, approximately 0.7 miles north of the project site.

Marginally suitable riparian habitat for yellow-breasted chat is present and there us a moderate potential for yellow-breasted chat to be present on the project site.

Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). Yellow warbler is a migratory species, occurring in California only during the breeding season, which is typically between April and August. In California, it is widespread in riparian habitat throughout much of the state. It typically nests in dense riparian vegetation near watercourses (CDFW 2022a). Yellow warbler have not been previously detected on the project site but are known from several locations within 1 mile of the project site (eBird.org 2022). Suitable habitat is present throughout the project site, and there is a moderate potential for them to be present.

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

January 2023 16
San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). San Diego desert woodrat is known from coastal and desert scrub and rocky outcrops throughout much of southern California (CDFW 2022a). It frequently builds large middens (piles of sticks and debris arranged to form a shelter) in rock outcrops or around the bases of shrubs. In some portions of its range, it builds middens primarily at the bases of cactus (Opuntia sps.) and yucca (Yucca sps.) plants (Feldhamer et al. 2003). Habitat in the project site is suitable for San Diego desert woodrat and it has been documented within about 5 miles of the project site.

Bats. Several special-status bat species have at least a low potential to forage over the project site: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus). The pallid bat and Western mastiff bat forage in open areas over grasslands, agricultural areas, and other shrublands and roost in a variety of habitats including building, rock crevices, and caves. The pocketed free-tailed bat forages over water and open shrublands and roosts in crevices in cliffs. Hoary bats may roost in tree foliage within the project site. The remaining species are unlikely to roost in the project site because of a lack of suitable roosting habitat.

5.2.3 Other Special-Status Wildlife Species
Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii). Crotch bumble bee was recently petitioned for listing under the CESA but was determined to not be eligible for protection under CESA. It is currently recognized as a special animal but may be petitioned again in the future based on a recent interpretation of CESA which indicates that some invertebrates may be eligible for protection. Crotch bumble bee is a widespread secretive species that is known from more than two hundred locations over a broad geographic range (CDFW 2022a). It is typically found in openings in grassland and scrub habitats where it burrows into the ground and lives in colonies. It feeds on native plants including milkweed, pincushion, lupine, phacelia, sage, snapdragon, clarkia, bush poppy, and buckwheat. Many of these food plants are present on the project site and suitable burrowing habitat is also present. Crotch bumblebee has a moderate potential to be present on the site and is known from numerous observations in the region.

Raptors: Two additional special-status bird of prey are found throughout the region. Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii; CDFW Watch List species) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Watch List species) are known to nest in and around urban areas of Southern California and forages in open space.

Suitable nesting habitat for these species is limited and foraging habitat for these species is present within the project site. A single Cooper’s hawk was observed flying over the project site during the biological survey.

Other special-status birds: Two additional special-status bird species are reported from the surrounding area (CDFW, 2022a; Table 2): Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; CDFW Watch List Species) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). These species were not observed on the project site during field surveys. These species are known from throughout the region and are likely to forage on the project site but are not expected to nest on the project site. Several birds identified as Birds of Conservation Concern were also identified in the USFWS IPaC search (Attachment 3). Several of these including Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus). These species have a potential to be present on the project site but do not have any formal protection.

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

17 January 2023

5.3 Designated Critical Habitat
The literature review conducted prior to conducting field surveys determined that the project site is not within federally designated critical habitat for any species. The nearest designated critical habitat is for San Bernardino kangaroo rat and is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the project site (USFWS 2002).

5.4 Native Birds: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) / California Fish and Game Code
The federal MBTA prohibits take of any migratory bird, including eggs or active nests, except as permitted by regulation (e.g., licensed hunting of waterfowl or upland game species). Under the MBTA, “migratory bird” is broadly defined as “any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle” and thus applies to most native bird species. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 prohibits take, possession, or needless destruction of bird nests or eggs; Section 3503.5 prohibits take or possession of birds of prey or their eggs; and Section 3513 prohibits take or possession of any migratory nongame bird. With the exception of a few non-native birds, such as European starling, the take of any birds or loss of active bird nests or young is regulated by these statutes. Most of these species have no other special conservation status as defined above.

The project site has many trees, shrubs, and open areas that may provide nesting habitat. Numerous common and special-status birds are known to nest in the area and many of these are likely to nest on the project site. No active nests were observed during the biological surveys.

Many adult birds would flee from equipment during project construction; however, nestlings and eggs would be vulnerable. If project activities include site grading or brush removal during nesting season, then it would likely destroy bird nests, including eggs or nestling birds. For most birds, these impacts can be avoided by scheduling initial clearing and grading outside the nesting season. Or, if initial clearing and grading are undertaken during nesting season, work may be limited only to areas where no nesting birds are present, as documented by pre-construction nest surveys.

Some birds are likely to nest in the project site during construction, even after initial grading and clearing have been completed. Depending on the species, birds may nest on the ground; in adjacent vegetation; or on construction equipment that is left overnight or during a long weekend. The species most likely to nest in the project site during construction are common ravens, house finches, killdeer, and mourning doves, all of which are protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. Due to the high probability that birds may nest on site during construction, regular monitoring and nest site management may be necessary throughout the breeding season.

5.5 Wildlife Movement
The ability for wildlife to move freely among populations and habitat areas is important to long-term genetic variation and demography. Fragmentation and isolation of natural habitat may cause loss of native species diversity in fragmented habitats. In the short term, wildlife movement may also be important to individual animals’ ability to occupy their home ranges, if their ranges extend across a potential movement barrier. These considerations are especially important for rare, threatened, or endangered species, and wide-ranging species such as large mammals, which exist in low population densities.

The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project was commissioned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CDFW to create a statewide assessment of essential habitat connectivity to

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

January 2023 18
be used for conservation and infrastructure planning (Caltrans and CDFW 2010). One of its goals was to create the Essential Connectivity Map, which depicts large, relatively natural habitat blocks that support native biodiversity (natural landscape blocks) and areas essential for ecological connectivity between them (essential connectivity areas). This map does not reflect the needs of particular species but is based on overall biological connectivity and ecological integrity. A more detailed analysis is required to assess local and regional needs for connectivity and develop linkage designs based on the requirements of individual species (Caltrans and CDFW 2010). The project site is not located within any identified Essential Habitat Connectivity Areas or Natural Landscape Blocks. The project site is more likely to support more localized movement within the region, with some species such as coyote occupying the project site and radiating out into the adjacent development to forage.

6.0 Impact Assessment
Several special-status biological resources that were observed on the project site or have at least a moderate potential to be present and may be impacted as discussed below. This analysis in intended to lay the framework for analysis under the CEQA.

6.1 Vegetation and Cover Types
Five vegetation types and one additional cover type are present within the project site. One of these vegetation types, scale broom scrub, is present and is a sensitive natural community. Scale broom scrub is discussed below in Section 6.2. The remaining four vegetation types and one cover type are not protected communities and are also not limited in the region. For these reasons, impacts to the remaining vegetation and land cover types are not expected to be significant under CEQA.

6.2 Sensitive Natural Communities
One sensitive natural community, scale broom scrub, was observed within the project site. A total of 0.14 acres of scale broom scrub are within the Development Area and will be removed. The scale broom scrub within the project site is limited to the north-facing basin slope and is providing limited habitat value. The loss of 0.14 acres of scale broom scrub is a limited impact but may be significant under CEQA. A mitigation measure has been added below to offset the loss of scale broom scrub.

6.3 Wildlife Habitat
The project would result in the loss of 9.13 acres of wildlife habitat within the Development Area. The loss of this habitat for common species is not expected to be significant under CEQA and no mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat is expected. Loss of special-status species habitat is discussed below.

6.4 Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were observed on the project site. Parry’s spineflower has a CRPR of 1B.1 and a low to moderate potential to be present. It was not detected in 2022 and therefore impacts to this species are expected to be less than significant. Two special-status plants with a CRPR of 4 have a moderate potential to be present but were not observed. Plants ranked as CRPR 4 have no formal protection under CEQA and impacts to these species would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required for potential impacts to special-status plants.

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

19 January 2023

6.5 Special-Status Wildlife
Two special-status wildlife species were observed on the project site during the surveys. These include coastal whiptail and Cooper’s hawk. Coastal whiptail is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and impacts may be significant under CEQA. A mitigation measure has been added below to reduce any potential impacts to this species. Cooper’s hawk is a CDFW watch list species which has no formal protection and requires to impact assessment under CEQA. If nesting on site, Cooper’s hawks may be impacted.

Mitigation measures below to protect nesting birds would also protect Cooper’s hawk and would reduce any potential impacts. No additional mitigation measures are needed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to special-status wildlife.

6.6 Native Birds: Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) / California Fish and Game Code
Nesting birds on the project site have a potential to be impacted by project construction. Impacts to nesting birds would violate the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. It could also result in significant impacts under CEQA. To mitigate any potential impacts to nesting birds, a mitigation measure has been added below.

6.7 Wildlife Movement
Project construction is not expected to result in significant impacts to wildlife movement or corridors. As discussed above, the project site is likely to support localized movement within the basin and is not expected to provide a wildlife corridor. Wildlife utilizing the Development Area would be pushed further east into the Conservation Area, golf courses, and open space. Impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant.

7.0 Mitigation Measures
To avoid or reduce potential impacts to special-status biological resources on the project site, Aspen recommends the following mitigation measures. These measures are intended to avoid or reduce impacts to sensitive natural communities, special-status wildlife, and nesting birds within the Development Area.

The biological resource measures area as follows:
 To mitigate the anticipated loss of 0.14 acres of scale broom scrub, the City of Upland will incorporate scale broom scrub habitat creation into the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Conservation Area. It is expected that 0.14 acres of scale broom scrub will be created to offset the loss of this sensitive natural community. The methods to be used for habitat creation, success criteria, and monitoring schedule will all be specified in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.  To mitigate potential impacts to coastal whiptail on the project site, the City of Upland will assign a Qualified Biologist to the project to be present during initial vegetation clearing and soil disturbance.

The Qualified Biologist will capture coastal whiptail and any other special-status species from with the Development Area and will relocate them into the Conservation Area.  To mitigate potential impacts to nesting birds, initial vegetation clearing, and soil disturbance will be scheduled between August 16th and February 14th, outside of the nesting bird season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible and must initiate between February 15th and August 15th, a Qualified Biologist will conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys. If nests are found, appropriate buffers will

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

January 2023 20
be established around the nests to ensure that the nests are not impacted. Once the nests are inactive, the Qualified Biologist will remove the buffer and work will be allowed to proceed.  To mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl, a Qualified Biologist will complete a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl. If burrowing owl are found on the project site outside of the nesting season (September 1st through January 31st), the burrowing owls will be relocated according to the methods specified in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012). If burrowing owls are found on the project site during the nesting season (February 1st through August 31st), they will be avoided throughout the duration of the nesting season. Buffers will be established based on the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).

8.0 Conclusions
No State and federally listed species are known from the project site or the immediate vicinity. Two special-status wildlife species were observed, including coastal whiptail and Cooper’s hawk. Impacts to both of these species are expected to be less than significant with the incorporated mitigation measures.

Several other special-status wildlife species have a potential to be present but mitigation measures for the species mentioned above would also minimize or avoid impacts to these additional species. One sensitive natural community, scale broom scrub, was also observed within the project site. Mitigation measures included would offset the loss of this natural community and would result in a less than significant impact. With implementation of the mitigation measures in this report, all impacts to protected biological resources would be avoided, minimized, or otherwise mitigated for.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
21 January 2023

9.0 Literature Cited
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Checklist of the North American Birds, 7th ed. Prepared by Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington DC.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, D.H. Wilken (eds.) 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed. University Press, Berkeley, California.

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Alviso, California. 13 pp.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind, Version 5. Heritage section, CDFW, Sacramento. _____. 2022b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. CDFW, Sacramento. Online: https:// nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline _____. 2022c. California Natural Community List. CDFW. Sacramento. Online:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline _____. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Online:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959 _____. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Online:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true CalTrans and CDFW (California Department of Transportation and California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Online: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity/ CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of rare and endangered plants. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento. Online: http://www.cnps.org/inventory . Accessed August 2022.

CCH (Consortium of California Herbaria). 2022. Botanical specimen data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ Accessed August 2022.
eBird.org. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org Accessed August 2022.

Feldhamer, G.A., B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (eds.). 2003. Wild Mammals of North America:

Biology, Management and Conservation, 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD.

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, California.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.

California Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Public Works). 2022. Near Real-Time Precipitation Map. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/rainfall/ Accessed September 2022.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
January 2023 22
RCA Associates, Inc. 2022. General Biological Resources Assessment, Upland, San Bernardino County , California, APN: 3105-171-08.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evans. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 1300 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Mass.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation. [Online]:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ Accessed August 2022.
_____. 2007a. Protection of Eagles; Definition of ‘‘Disturb.’’ Federal Register 72:31132 -31140 (5 Jun). _____. 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Federal Register 72:72010-72213 (19 Dec).
_____. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Federal Register 67:19812-19845 (23 Apr).

Wilson, D.E. and S. Ruff (eds.). 1999. Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. III.

Mammals. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento.

Attachment 1 – Figures

E 1 5 t h S t E 1 5 t h S t
Sawtoo t h D r
Pebbl
e
B
e
a
c
h
D
r
U p l a n d H i l l s Dr N
U p l a n d H i l l s D r S
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
S t A n d r e w s D r
E 1 6 t h S t E 1 6 t h S t
U pland H ill s
C ountr y C lub
A l p i n e
M
o
n
t
e
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
C
r
a
w
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
E 1 4 t h S t E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
E d d ingt o n S t
D
a
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
M
a
p
l
e
E
d
g
e
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
G o l f C lubDr
Upland Hills Dr N
Upland H i l l s D r S
T
a
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
Grove
A
v
e
R e d h i l l N o r t h D r
Oakmont Dr
C e rrit o R ojoDr
E 1 6 t h S t
Red Hi ll C oun try
Cl ub

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Project Location
F Project Site
Conservation Area
Residential Development Area
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 1
Project Overview
Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022.

E 1 5 t h S t
Sawtoo t h D r
W i n g e d F o o t D r
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
S t A n d r e w s D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Upland H ills
Countr y C lub
E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
Upland Hills Dr N
Upland H i l l s D r S
A u g u s t a D r
Tanglewo
o
d
A
v
e
Grove
A
v
e
R e d h i l l N o r t h D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Red Hi ll Countr y
Cl ub
F
Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022. 0 500
Feet
Project Site
Vegetation and Land Cover
California buckwheat scrub
Cattail marsh
Developed or Disturbed
Mulefat scrub
Ornamental trees
Scale broom scrub
Figure 2
Vegetation and Land Cover

E 1 5 t h S t
Sawtoo t h D r
W i n g e d F o o t D r
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
S t A n d r e w s D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Upland H ills
Countr y C lub
E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
Upland Hills Dr N
Upland H i l l s D r S
A u g u s t a D r
Tanglewo
o
d
A
v
e
Grove
A
v
e
R e d h i l l N o r t h D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Red Hi ll Countr y
Cl ub
F
Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022. 0 500
Feet
Coastal whiptail
Project Site
Figure 3
Biological Resources

Attachment 2 – CNDDB Query Results

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Abronia villosa var. aurita
chaparral sand-verbena
PDNYC010P1 None None G5T2?S2 1B.1
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
ABPBX91091 None None G5T3 S3 WL
Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
ABPBXA0020 None None G5 S3 SSC
Anaxyrus californicus
arroyo toad
AAABB01230 Endangered None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern California legless lizard
ARACC01060 None None G3 S3 SSC
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis
San Gabriel manzanita
PDERI042P0 None None G5T3 S3 1B.2
Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
Artemisiospiza belli belli
Bell's sage sparrow
ABPBX97021 None None G5T2T3 S3 WL
Asio otus
long-eared owl
ABNSB13010 None None G5 S3?SSC
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
orange-throated whiptail
ARACJ02060 None None G5 S2S3 WL
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
ARACJ02143 None None G5T5 S3 SSC
Astragalus brauntonii
Braunton's milk-vetch
PDFAB0F1G0 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Atractelmis wawona
Wawona riffle beetle
IICOL58010 None None G3 S1S2
Atriplex coulteri
Coulter's saltbush
PDCHE040E0 None None G3 S1S2 1B.2
Quad IS (Mt. Baldy (3411726) OR Ontario (3411716) OR Glendora (3411727) OR San Dimas (3411717) OR Guasti (3411715) OR Cucamonga Peak (3411725) OR Yorba Linda (3311787) OR Prado Dam (3311786) OR Corona North (3311785)) Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Friday, September 16, 2022

Information Expires 3/4/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Batrachoseps gabrieli
San Gabriel slender salamander
AAAAD02110 None None G2G3 S2S3
Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry
PDBER060A0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
IIHYM24480 None None G2 S1S2
Brodiaea filifolia
thread-leaved brodiaea
PMLIL0C050 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
California Walnut Woodland
California Walnut Woodland
CTT71210CA None None G2 S2.1
Callophrys mossii hidakupa
San Gabriel Mountains elfin butterfly
IILEPE2206 None None G4T1T2 S1S2
Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis
slender mariposa-lily
PMLIL0D096 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's mariposa-lily
PMLIL0D150 None None G4 S4 4.2
Calochortus weedii var. intermedius
intermediate mariposa-lily
PMLIL0D1J1 None None G3G4T3 S3 1B.2
Calystegia felix
lucky morning-glory
PDCON040P0 None None G1Q S1 1B.1
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis
coastal cactus wren
ABPBG02095 None None G5T3Q S3 SSC
Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest
Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest
CTT61350CA None None G3 S3.3
Castilleja gleasoni
Mt. Gleason paintbrush
PDSCR0D140 None Rare G2 S2 1B.2
Catostomus santaanae
Santa Ana sucker
AFCJC02190 Threatened None G1 S1
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant
PDAST4R0R4 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.1
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
AMAFD05031 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Parry's spineflower
PDPGN040J2 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1
Cladium californicum
California saw-grass
PMCYP04010 None None G4 S2 2B.2
Claytonia peirsonii ssp. peirsonii
Peirson's spring beauty
PDPOR03121 None None G2G3T2 S2 1B.2
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
CTT52410CA None None G3 S2.1
Report Printed on Friday, September 16, 2022

Information Expires 3/4/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
San Diego banded gecko
ARACD01031 None None G5T5 S1S2 SSC
Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
ABNME01010 None None G4 S1S2 SSC
Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake
ARADE02090 None None G4 S3 SSC
Cypseloides niger
black swift
ABNUA01010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Diplectrona californica
California diplectronan caddisfly
IITRI23010 None None G1G2 S1S2
Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
AMAFD03143 Endangered Candidate
Endangered
G5T1 S1 SSC
Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' kangaroo rat
AMAFD03100 Threatened Threatened G2 S2
Dodecahema leptoceras
slender-horned spineflower
PDPGN0V010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Dudleya densiflora
San Gabriel Mountains dudleya
PDCRA040B0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Dudleya multicaulis
many-stemmed dudleya
PDCRA040H0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP
Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow flycatcher
ABPAE33043 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S1
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi
large-blotched salamander
AAAAD04013 None None G5T2?S3 WL
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum
Santa Ana River woollystar
PDPLM03035 Endangered Endangered G4T1 S1 1B.1
Eriogonum microthecum var. johnstonii
Johnston's buckwheat
PDPGN083W5 None None G5T2 S2 1B.3
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Falco columbarius
merlin
ABNKD06030 None None G5 S3S4 WL
Fimbristylis thermalis
hot springs fimbristylis
PMCYP0B0N0 None None G4 S1S2 2B.2
Report Printed on Friday, September 16, 2022

Information Expires 3/4/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Gila orcuttii
arroyo chub
AFCJB13120 None None G2 S2 SSC
Glyptostoma gabrielense
San Gabriel chestnut
IMGASB1010 None None G2 S2
Gonidea angulata
western ridged mussel
IMBIV19010 None None G3 S1S2
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
mesa horkelia
PDROS0W045 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
ABPBX24010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05030 None None G3G4 S4
Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat
AMACC05070 None None G4G5 S3 SSC
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041 None Threatened G3T1 S1 FP
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
Robinson's pepper-grass
PDBRA1M114 None None G5T3 S3 4.3
Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
AMAEB03051 None None G5T3T4 S3S4
Lilium parryi
lemon lily
PMLIL1A0J0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Linanthus concinnus
San Gabriel linanthus
PDPLM090D0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Monardella australis ssp. jokerstii
Jokerst's monardella
PDLAM18112 None None G4T1?S1?1B.1
Monardella breweri ssp. glandulifera
Brown's Flat monardella
PDLAM180B1 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii
Hall's monardella
PDLAM180E1 None None G5T3 S3 1B.3
Muhlenbergia californica
California muhly
PMPOA480A0 None None G4 S4 4.3
Muhlenbergia utilis
aparejo grass
PMPOA481X0 None None G4 S2S3 2B.2
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
AMACC01020 None None G5 S4
Navarretia prostrata
prostrate vernal pool navarretia
PDPLM0C0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Neolarra alba
white cuckoo bee
IIHYM81010 None None GH SH
Report Printed on Friday, September 16, 2022

Information Expires 3/4/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat
AMAFF08041 None None G5T3T4 S3S4 SSC
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
AMACD04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
AMACD04020 None None G5 S3 SSC
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10
steelhead - southern California DPS
AFCHA0209J Endangered Candidate
Endangered
G5T1Q S1
Oreonana vestita
woolly mountain-parsley
PDAPI1G030 None None G3 S3 1B.3
Orobanche valida ssp. valida
Rock Creek broomrape
PDORO040G2 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
Ovis canadensis nelsoni
desert bighorn sheep
AMALE04013 None None G4T4 S3 FP
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse
AMAFD01041 None None G5T2 S1S2 SSC
Phacelia stellaris
Brand's star phacelia
PDHYD0C510 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC
Polioptila californica californica
coastal California gnatcatcher
ABPBJ08081 Threatened None G4G5T3Q S2 SSC
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum
white rabbit-tobacco
PDAST440C0 None None G4 S2 2B.2
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
AAABH01050 None Endangered G3 S3 SSC
Rana muscosa
southern mountain yellow-legged frog
AAABH01330 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 WL
Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
IIDIP05021 Endangered None G1T1 S1
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8
Santa Ana speckled dace
AFCJB3705K None None G5T1 S1 SSC
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
CTT32720CA None None G1 S1.1
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
coast patch-nosed snake
ARADB30033 None None G5T4 S2S3 SSC
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2
Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler
ABPBX03010 None None G5 S3S4 SSC
Report Printed on Friday, September 16, 2022

Information Expires 3/4/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Sidalcea neomexicana
salt spring checkerbloom
PDMAL110J0 None None G4 S2 2B.2
Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker
Stream
Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker
Stream
CARE2330CA None None GNR SNR
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
CTT61310CA None None G4 S4
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
CTT61330CA None None G3 S3.2
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
CTT62400CA None None G4 S4
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern Willow Scrub
CTT63320CA None None G3 S2.1
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3 SSC
Streptanthus bernardinus
Laguna Mountains jewelflower
PDBRA2G060 None None G3G4 S3S4 4.3
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
PDASTE80C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Symphyotrichum greatae
Greata's aster
PDASTE80U0 None None G2 S2 1B.3
Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake
ARADB36160 None None G4 S3S4 SSC
Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis
Sonoran maiden fern
PPTHE05192 None None G5T3 S2 2B.2
Thysanocarpus rigidus
rigid fringepod
PDBRA2Q070 None None G1G2 S2 1B.2
Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea
grey-leaved violet
PDVIO04431 None None G4G5T3 S3 1B.2
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2
Walnut Forest
Walnut Forest
CTT81600CA None None G1 S1.1
Record Count: 121
Report Printed on Friday, September 16, 2022

Information Expires 3/4/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Attachment 3 – IPaC Resource List

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
San Bernardino County, California
Local oce
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Oce
 (760) 431-9440
 (760) 431-5901
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doing the following:

1.Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2.Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3.Log in (if directed to do so).

4.Provide a name and description for your project.

5.Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1.Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2

2.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location:

Mammals
Birds
Insects
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
San Bernardino Merriam's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys
merriami parvus
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2060
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica
californica
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178
Threatened
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS

Critical habitats
Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around San Diego Ambrosia Ambrosia pumila
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8287
Endangered
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1.The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2.The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/ les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf
1 2

your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASONNAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9447
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 31
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31

Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ()
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldnch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10

no datasurvey eortbreeding seasonprobability of presence Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1.The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Eort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Black-chinned
Sparrow
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Lawrence's
Goldnch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specied location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the proles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:Page 3163 of 3744

1."BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2."BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3."Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn

more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Coastal Barrier Resources System
Projects within the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) may be subject to the restrictions on federal expenditures and nancial assistance and the consultation requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). For more information, please contact the local Ecological Services Field Oce or visit the CBRA Consultations website. The CBRA website provides tools such as a ow chart to help determine whether consultation is required and a template to facilitate the consultation process.

There are no known coastal barriers at this location.

Data limitations
The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are depicted on the ocial CBRS maps. The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered authoritative for in/out determinations close to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Buer Zone" that appears as a hatched area on either side of the boundary). For projects that are very close to a CBRS boundary but do not clearly intersect a unit, you may contact the Service for an ocial determination by following the instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-resources-system-property-documentation Data exclusions
CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location of the unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore projects in the oshore areas of units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, oshore wind energy or oil and gas projects) may be subject to CBRA even if they do not intersect the CBRS data. For additional information, please contact [email protected].

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no sh hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
Palustrine
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities.

Attachment 4 – Special-Status Species Not Addressed

Attachment 4. Special-Status Species Not Addressed1
Latin Name Common Name Reason for Exclusion
PLANTS
Abronia villosa var. aurita Chaparral sand-verbena No suitable wash habitat.

Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia No suitable alkali soils present Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. gabrielensis San Gabriel manzanita Well below elevational range.

Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch No suitable chaparral habitat.

Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush So suitable alkali soils.

Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved brodiaea No suitable clays or alkali soils.

Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis Slender mariposa-lily No suitable chaparral habitat.

Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Intermediate mariposa-lily Well outside of the geographic range.

Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis Smooth tarplant So suitable alkali soils.

Cladium californicum California saw-grass No suitable perennial marsh habitat.

Claytonia peirsonii ssp. peirsonii Peirson’s spring beauty Well below elevational range.

Dodecahema leptoceras Slender-horned spineflower No suitable mature alluvial scrub habitat.

Dudleya densiflora San Gabriel Mountain dudleya Well outside of the geographic range.

Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed dudleya Well outside of the geographic range.

Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar No suitable wash habitat.

Eriogonum microthecum var. johnstonii Johnston’s buckwheat Well below elevational range.

Fimbristylis thermalis Hot springs fimbristylis No suitable perennial marsh habitat.

Glyptostoma gabrielense San Gabriel chestnut No suitable chaparral or woodland habitat.

Lilium parryi Lemon lily Well below elevational range.

Linanthus concinnus San Gabriel linanthus Well below elevational range.

Monardella australis ssp. jokerstii Jokerst’s monardella Well below elevational range.

Monardella breweri ssp. glandulifera Brown's Flat monardella Well below elevational range.

Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Hall’s monardella Well below elevational range.

Muhlenbergia californica California muhly No suitable mesic canyon habitat.

Muhlenbergia utilis Aparejo grass Well outside of the geographic range.

Navarretia prostrata Prostrate vernal pool navarretia No suitable vernal pool habitat.

Oreonana vestita Woolly mountain-parsley Well below elevational range.

Orobanche valida ssp. valida Rock creek broomrape Well outside of the geographic range.

Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia Well outside of the geographic range.

Senecio aphanactis Chaparral ragwort No suitable alkali soils.

Sidalcea neomexicana Salt spring checkerbloom No suitable alkali substrates.

Streptanthus bernardinus Laguna Mountains jewelflower Well outside of the geographic range.

Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster No suitable meadow habitat.

Symphyotrichum greatae Greata's aster No suitable mesic canyon habitat.

Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis Sonoran maiden fern No suitable mesic canyon habitat.

Thysanocarpus rigidus Rigid fringepod Well outside of the geographic range.

Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea Grey-leaved violet Well outside of the geographic range.

INVERTEBRATES
Atractelmis wawona Wawona riffle beetle No suitable aquatic habitat.

Callophrys mossii hidakupa San Gabriel Mountains elfin butterfly Well below elevational range.

Diplectrona californica California diplectronan caddisfly No suitable stream habitat.

Gonidea angulata Western ridged mussel No suitable stream habitat.

Attachment 4. Special-Status Species Not Addressed1
Latin Name Common Name Reason for Exclusion
Neolarra alba White cuckoo bee Extirpated from Southern California.

Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower-loving fly No suitable sand dune habitat.

FISHES
Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker No suitable aquatic habitat.

Gila orcuttii Arroyo chub No suitable aquatic habitat.

Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 8 Santa Ana Speckled dace No suitable aquatic habitat.

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 Steelhead - Southern California DPS No suitable aquatic habitat.

AMPHIBIANS
Anaxyrus californicus Arroyo toad No suitable wash habitat.

Batrachoseps gabrielli San Gabriel slender salamander Well below elevational range.

Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi Large-blotched salamander No suitable wetland habitat.

Rana boylii Foothill yellow-legged frog No suitable rocky pool creek habitat.

Rana mucosa Southern mountain yellow-legged frog No suitable aquatic habitat.

Spea hammondii Western spadefoot No suitable seasonal pool habitat.

Taricha torosa Coast Range newt No suitable aquatic habitat.

Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake No suitable wash habitat.

Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange-throated whiptail Well outside of the geographic range.

Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Diego banded gecko No suitable wash habitat.

Crotalus ruber Red-diamond rattlesnake Well outside of the geographic range.

Emys marmorata Western pond turtle No suitable ponded habitat.

Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Coast patch-nosed snake Not adequately sized to support animals.

Thamnophis hammondii Two-striped gartersnake No suitable aquatic habitat.

BIRDS
Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow No suitable grassland habitat.

Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell's sage sparrow No suitable chaparral habitat.

Asio otus Long-eared owl Not adequately sized to support animals.

Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis Coastal cactus wren Well outside of the geographic range, no suitable cactus habitat.

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo No suitable riparian habitat.

Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail No suitable wetland habitat.

Cypseloides niger Black swift No suitable riparian habitat.

Empidonax trailii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher No suitable riparian habitat.

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail No suitable wetland habitat.

MAMMALS
Chaetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Well outside of geographic range.

Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat Well outside of geographic range.

Dipodomys stephensi Stephen’s kangaroo rat Well outside of geographic range.

Ovis canadensis nelsoni Desert bighorn sheep Well outside of geographic range.

Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse No suitable alluvial scrub habitat.

Taxidea taxus American badger Not adequately sized to support animals.

Note:
1 Special-status species reported from the region, but not addressed in this report due to habitat or geographic range.

Attachment 5 – Project Species List

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name

VASCULAR PLANTS

DICOTYLEDONS

ADOXACEAE ELDERBERRY FAMILY
Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue elderberry

ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC FAMILY
Rhus aromatica Fragrant sumac
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak

APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY
*Nerium oleander Oleander

ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual sandbur
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Baccharis sarothroides Broom baccharis
*Centaurea melitensis Tocalote
Ericameria pinifolia Pinebush
Helianthus annuus Annual sunflower
*Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraphweed
Lepidospartum squamatum Scalebroom
*Logfia gallica Narrowleaf cottonrose
Pseudognaphalium canescens Wright’s cudweed
*Pulicaria paludosa Spanish false fleabane
Senecio flaccidus var. douglasii Bush senecio
*Sonchus asper ssp. asper Prickly sow thistle
Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur

BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Eriodictyon trichocalyx Hairy yerba santa
Pectocarya linearis ssp. ferocula Slender comb seed

BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
*Brassica fruticulosa Mediterranean cabbage
*Hirschfeldia incana Short-pod mustard
Nasturtium officinale Watercress
*Raphanus sativus Jointed charlock
*Sisymbrium orientale Indian hedge mustard

CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY
Opuntia littoralis Prickly pear

CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
*Dysphania ambrosioides Mexican tea
*Salsola tragus Russian thistle

CISTACEAE ROCKROSE FAMILY
Crocanthemum scoparium var. scoparium Peak rushrose

CONVOLVULACEAE MORNINGGLORY FAMILY
Cuscuta sp. Unid. dodder

CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY
Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla

EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Croton californicus Desert croton
Croton setiger Turkey-mulleion
*Euphorbia peplus Petty spurge
Euphorbia serpillifolia Thyme-leafed spurge

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name
*Ricinus communis Castor bean

FABACEAE PEA FAMILY
Acmispon glaber Deerweed
Astragalus pomonensis Pomona milkvetch
*Melilotus alba White sweet-clover

FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak

GROSSULARIACEAE CURRANT FAMILY
Ribes aureum Golden currant

HYDROPHYLLACEAE WATERLEAF FAMILY
Emmenanthe penduliflora Whispering bells
Phacelia ramosissima Branching phacelia

LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
*Marrubium vulgare Common horehound
*Mentha spicata Spearmint

LYTHRACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe myrtle

MORACEAE MULBERRY FAMILY
*Morus alba White mulberry

MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY
*Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel

MYRTACEAE EUCALYPTUS FAMILY
*Eucalyptus sp.Ornamental eucalyptus

OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus uhdei Shamel ash

ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissoniopsis bistorta California sun cup
Epilobium brachycarpum Annual fireweed
Epilobium ciliatum Willow-herb
Ludwigia peploides Floating water primrose

PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY
Penstemon spectabilis Showy penstemon
*Plantago major Common plantain
*Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water speedwell

PLANTANACEAE SYCAMORE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa California sycamore
*Platanus ×hispanica London plane tree

PHRYMACEAE LOPSEED FAMILY
Mimulus guttatus Seep monkeyflower

POLEMONIACEAE PHLOX FAMILY
Navarretia hamata Hooked navarretia

POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
*Rumex crispus Curly dock

PORTULACAEAE PURSLANE FAMILY
*Portulaca oleraceae Common purslane

RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Frangula californica California coffeeberry

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Cercocarpus betuloides Birch leaf mountain mahogany

SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name
Salix exigua Narrow-leaf willow
Salix goodingii Gooding’s black willow

SAPINDACEAE SOAPBERRY FAMILY
*Koelreuteria bipinnata Goldenrain tree

SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii Jimsonweed
*Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco

ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY
*Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm

MONOCOTYLEDONS

ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
*Washingtonia filifera California fan palm

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY
Carex sp. Unid. sedge
*Cyperus involucratus Umbrella sedge

LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY
Asparagus asparagoides African asparagus fern

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
*Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome
*Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
*Echinochloa colona Jungle rice
*Ehrharta erecta Upright veldt grass
*Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass
*Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley
*Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass
*Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beard grass
*Stipa miliacea Smilo grass

TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail

VERTEBRATE ANIMALS

REPTILIA REPTILES

IGUANIDAE IGUANID LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard

TEIIDAE WHIPTAIL FAMILY
** Aspidosceleis tigris stejnegeri Coastal whiptail

AVES BIRDS

CATHARTIDAE NEW WORLD VULTURES
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture

ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, EAGLES, HARRIERS
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk

COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS AND DOVES
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove

TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird

TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe

CORVIDAE CROWS AND RAVENS
Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name

AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit

MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird

EMBERIZIDAE SPARROWS AND TANAGERS
Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee
Pipilo redivivum California towhee
Melospiza melodia Song sparrow

FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus House finch
Carduelisp saltria Lesser goldfinch

MAMMALIA MAMMALS

CRICETIDAE PACKRAT FAMILY
Neotoma sp. Unid. woodrat

SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel

CANIDAE FOXES, WOLVES, AND COYOTES
Canis latrans Coyote
Species introduced to California are indicated by an asterisk. Special-status species are indicated by two asterisks.

This list includes only species observed on the site. Others may have been overlooked or unidentifiable due to season (amphibians are active during rains, reptiles during summer, some birds (and bats) migrate out of the area for summer or winter, some mammals hibernate, many plants are identifiable only in spring). Plants were identified using keys, descriptions, and illustrations in Baldwin et al (2012). Plant taxonomy and nomenclature generally follow Baldwin et al. (2012). Wildlife taxonomy and nomenclature generally follow Stebbins (2003) for amphibians and reptiles, AOU (1998) for birds, and Wilson and Ruff (1999) for mammals.

Attachment 6 – Project Photos

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
January 2023
Photo 1: East-facing view of the Development Area with a small patch of wetland vegetation in the foreground.

Photo 3: East-facing view of the disturbed habitat within the central portion of the Development Area, within the western half of the Project Site.

Photo 2: Northwest-facing overview of the Development Area in the western portion of the Project Site.

Photo 4: Northwest-facing overview of the Conservation Area showing a stand of California buckwheat scrub and a narrow band of mulefat thickets.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
January 2023
Photo 5: Northeast-facing overview of the Conservation Area showing a stand of California buckwheat scrub and a narrow band of mulefat thickets.

Photo 7: Close-up view of dense cattail marshes at one of the side drainages within the Conservation Area.

Photo 6: Northeast-facing overview of cattail marshes at one of the side drainages within the Conservation Area.

Photo 8: North-facing view of cattail marshes at one of the side drainages within the Development Area.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
January 2023
Photo 9: West-facing view of California buckwheat scrub within the Conservation Area.

Photo 11: Southwest-facing view of patchy California buckwheat scrub along the southern access road within the Development Area.

Photo 10: East-facing view of California buckwheat scrub within the Conservation Area.

Photo 12: West-facing view of patchy California buckwheat scrub and disturbed habitat along the southern access road within the Development Area.

Appendix A – San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment for a 19-acre parcel located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California.

1 | Page
July 28, 2022
Robert Dalquest, City of Upland
Carl Winter, LSA
Subject: San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment for a 19- acre parcel located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Dalquest and Mr. Winter:

This letter report presents the results of a focused habitat assessment for the federally and state endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) (SBKR) and federally threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) (CAGN) conducted at an approximate 19-acre parcel (biological study area or study area) located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California. This was prepared in support of a proposed residential subdivision (Tract 20245). A previous general biological report was prepared by RCA Associates in May 2022.

PROJECT LOCATION
The study area is located north of East 15th Street and Red Hill North Drive, east of Fernando Avenue and west of Cerito Rojo Drive in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County (Figure 1).

The study area is surrounded by urban development, with the Upland Hills Country Club located to the north, Red Hill Country Club to the southweast, the Dry Dock Depot Boat and RV Storage located to the southwest, and residential development (including city streets) abutting the study area to the west, south, and east.

Methodology
Permitted SBKR and CAGN biologist Mikael Romich (USFWS 10(A)1(a) permit # TE-068799-5 and state scientific collecting permit #7043) conducted a habitat assessment for SBKR and CAGN for the study site on June 3 and July 1, 2022. The study site was assessed on foot with meandering transects and noting vegetation and soil characteristics that would be suitable for SBKR.

The condition of the vegetation was noted to determine suitability for CAGN. All plant and wildlife species observed were recorded.

SITE DESCRIPTION
The survey area was formerly a water detention basin and thus the far western part of the basin has two large culverts, as well as an overspill area. There was pooled water present and hydric vegetation at the base of the larger culvert and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) tadpoles were observed.

In addition, five drainage swales appear to enter the site’s basin area from the Upland Hills Country Club to the north where small patches of hydric vegetation were observed.

Figu re 1. Survey Area Location Legend
Biological Survey Area
1000 ft
N
➤➤
NPage 3182 of 3744

2 | Page
Hydric vegetation observed included cattails, sedges, willow herb, curly dock, stinging nettle, seep monkeyflower, and water primrose. The swales in the east part of the survey area support a narrow riparian swath consisting of sandbar willow (Salix exigua), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia).

Much of the western part of the survey area was mechanically cleared between 2020 and 2021; it is currently largely ruderal with sparse vegetation as it recovers from this disturbance. Seedlings and short-stature shrub species common in a sage scrub community were observed in the ruderal areas, such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), hairy yerbasanta (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). Other common species included jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), holly leaf navarretia (Navarretia atractyloides), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Not subject to mechanical clearing is a narrow strip of habitat north of and abutting East 15th Street that is California buckwheat scrub. In addition, the eastern portion of survey area has been cleared in the past but is now recovered and is dominated by a native California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub with subdominant species as described above.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SBKR Habitat Assessment
The habitat assessment determined that the study site does not provide suitable habitat characteristics for SBKR, primarily due to the lack of sandy substrates and absence of alluvial fan terraces. A review of 1938 aerial shows that even historically there was not evidence of fluvial processes at the study area. The soils on the basin bottom were compacted, which would also not be conducive to SBKR. Finally, the study area is outside of the current and historical known range of SBKR and does not overlap USFWS designated critical habitat for SBKR. SBKR would not occur at the study area.

CAGN Habitat Assessment
The habitat assessment determined that the study area has habitat that could be suitable for CAGN, which consists of approximately 0.9 acre of California buckwheat scrub on the south facing slope north of and abutting East 15th Street in the western part of the survey area (Figure 2). In addition, 8.8 acres of habitat in the eastern part of the survey area was determined as suitable for CAGN (Figure 2).

However, there are number of factors that suggest CAGN have a low potential to occur in the survey area. First, the study area occurs as a small island in a large matrix of urban development, making discovery, colonization, and dispersal of the site potentially difficult. Second, existing CAGN occupied habitat is not recorded nearby; the closest CAGN record is 5 miles to the northeast in an area that does not have any records since 1999. The next closest records occur 9 miles to the west near Bonelli Park where they appear to be regularly present. Finally, CAGN were not detected during the June 3 or July 1, 2022 surveys, nor during five (5) surveys conducted by RCA (2022) between January 25 and April 22, 2022. Considering these factors, CAGN have a low potential to occur in the survey area.

Figure 2. Suitable California Gnatcatcher Habitat Legend Suitable CAGN habitat
1000 ft
N
➤➤
NPage 3184 of 3744

3 | Page
Least Bell’s Vireo
In the eastern portion of the survey area, narrow strips of riparian vegetation at the north and south edges of the basin combined with non-native woodland habitat that separates the basin from the golf course, could provide suitable breeding habitat to the state and federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) (Figure 3). Due to isolation of the survey area from other suitable habitat and the small size of the suitable habitat, least Bell’s vireo is considered to have a low potential to occur in the eastern part of the survey area.

Species Observed
Twenty-four avian species were observed during the habitat assessment: mourning dove, Anna's hummingbird, Cooper's hawk, red-tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk, acorn woodpecker, black phoebe, Say's phoebe, Cassin's kingbird, California scrub-jay, American crow, common raven, oak titmouse, barn swallow, cliff swallow, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, American robin, northern mockingbird, house finch, lesser goldfinch, spotted towhee, hooded oriole, and common yellowthroat.

Other species observed were western toad (tadpoles), western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Likely due to the regular presence of ribwort plantain, a commonly used caterpillar host plant, butterfly activity in the basin area was high. In the western part of the survey area, monarch (Danaus plexippus) was observed, although its host plant (milkweed) was not recorded.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The western part of the survey area was mechanically disturbed between 2020 and 2021 when much of the vegetation was cleared and is currently largely ruderal with sparse vegetation cover. The eastern part of the survey area is dominated by California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub with some riparian and wetland species present. The study area was confirmed not to be suitable for SBKR and is outside of their current or historical range. Approximately 9.7 acres of California buckwheat scrub and California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub habitat was found to be potentially suitable for CAGN on the site, but due to distance from other known occupied areas and that none have been detected during previous field work, CAGN have a low potential to occur. To confirm they are absent, a focused breeding or non-breeding survey may be warranted.

A small patch of potentially suitable habitat for breeding least Bell’s vireo was observed in the eastern part of the survey area. Should project-related activities need to remove this habitat, a focused breeding survey for least Bell’s vireo may be warranted.

A total of seven (8) areas of hydric vegetation were observed, one associated with the culverts at the western end of the basin, four small patches due to golf course drainage, one larger patch at east end of basin, and two narrow strips of riparian vegetation at the north and south parts of the basin in the eastern portion of the survey area. The presence of these drainages may warrant further investigation, such as an updated formal jurisdictional delineation, to determine if removal during project

Figure 3. Suitable Least Bell's Vireo Habitat Legend
LBVI suitable habitat
1000 ft
N
➤➤
NPage 3186 of 3744

4 | Page
development may require regulatory permits from agencies such as the California Regional Water Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or the Army Corps of Engineers.

I certify that the information submitted in this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. Please let me know if you have any questions on this report. I can be reached at (909) 810-0718 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mikael Romich
Senior Biologist
C+1 909.810.0718
[email protected]
originbiology.com
Literature Cited
RCA Associates. 2022. General Biological Resources Assessment (APN: 3105-171-08). Prepared for: The Colonies Partners, LLC. 37 p.

Appendix A – Site Photographs
Photo 1. Example of the ruderal habitat within the basin in the central part of the survey area. On the southern slope scalebroom shrubs are evident.

Photo 2. Example of the ruderal habitat within the basin in the western part of the survey area.

Photo 3. Example of California buckwheat scrub located in the southwestern part of the survey area that is suitable for California gnatcatcher.

Photo 4. Example of California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub located in the eastern part of the survey area that is suitable for California gnatcatcher.

Photo 5. Example of California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub located in the eastern part of the survey area that is suitable for California gnatcatcher.

Photo 6. Example of one of the hydrophytic vegetation areas in the survey area supported by golf course run-off.

Photo 7. In the background is riparian habitat and non-native woodland in the eastern part of the survey area that that is suitable for least Bell’s vireo.

Photo 8. Example of mulefat scrub in the eastern part of the survey area that that is suitable for least Bell’s vireo.

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-2

SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT AND CALIFORNIA

GNATCATCHER 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

1 | Page
January 10, 2023
Robert D. Dalquest, AICP, MPA, MURP
Development Services Director, City of Upland
460 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786
Subject: San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment for a

26.2- acre parcel located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Dalquest:

This letter report presents the results of a focused habitat assessment for the federally and state endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) (SBKR) and federally threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) (CAGN) conducted for Diversified Pacific at an approximate 26.2-acre parcel (biological study area or study area) located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California. This was prepared in support of a proposed residential subdivision (Tract 20245). A previous general biological report was prepared by RCA Associates in May 2022.

PROJECT LOCATION
The study area is located north of East 15th Street and Red Hill North Drive, east of Fernando Avenue, and west of Campus Avenue in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County (Figure 1). The study area is surrounded by urban development, with the Upland Hills Country Club located to the north, Red Hill Country Club to the southweast, the Dry Dock Depot Boat and RV Storage located to the south, and residential development (including city streets) abutting the study area to the west, south, and east.

Methodology
Permitted SBKR and CAGN biologist Mikael Romich (USFWS 10(A)1(a) permit # TE-068799-5 and state scientific collecting permit #7043) conducted a habitat assessment for SBKR and CAGN for the study area on June 3, July 1, 2022, and January 9, 2023. The study area was assessed on foot with meandering transects while noting vegetation and soil characteristics that would be suitable for SBKR. The condition of the vegetation was noted to determine suitability for CAGN.

All plant and wildlife species observed were recorded.

SITE DESCRIPTION
Most the study area was formerly a water detention basin and thus the far western part of the basin has two large culverts, as well as an overspill area. There was pooled water present and hydric vegetation at the base of the larger culvert and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) tadpoles were observed. In addition, five drainage swales appear to enter the site’s basin area from the Upland Hills

Figure 1. Upland Biological Survey Area Legend
Biological Study Area
2000 ft
N
➤➤
NPage 3196 of 3744

2 | Page
Country Club to the north where small patches of hydric vegetation were observed. Hydric vegetation observed included cattail (Typha latifolia), sedges, willowherb (Epilobium species), curly dock (Rumex crispus), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), seep monkeyflower (Erythranthe guttata), and water primrose (Ludwigia species); Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla) was heard during the January 2023 field visit. The swales in the east part of the survey area support a narrow riparian swath consisting of sandbar willow (Salix exigua), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). During the January 2023 field visit, it was observed that maintenance had been conducted within the eastern basin areas such that the cattails had been removed likely with heavy machinery and stockpiled nearby.

Much of the western part of the survey area was mechanically cleared between 2020 and 2021; it is currently largely ruderal with sparse vegetation as it recovers from this disturbance. Seedlings and short-stature shrub species common in a sage scrub community were observed in the ruderal areas, such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), hairy yerbasanta (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). Other common species included jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), holly leaf navarretia (Navarretia atractyloides), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Not subject to mechanical clearing is a narrow strip of habitat north of and abutting East 15th Street that is California buckwheat scrub with patches of hairy yerbasanta and some California sagebrush, black sage (Salvia mellifera), and hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia). In addition, the eastern portion of survey area has been cleared in the past but is now recovered and is dominated by a native California sagebrush- California buckwheat scrub with subdominant species as described above.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SBKR Habitat Assessment
The habitat assessment determined that the study site does not provide suitable habitat characteristics for SBKR, primarily due to the lack of sandy substrates and absence of alluvial fan terraces. A review of 1938 aerial shows that even historically there was not evidence of fluvial processes at the study area.

The soils on the basin bottom were compacted, which would also not be conducive to SBKR. Finally, the study area is outside of the current and historical known range of SBKR and does not overlap USFWS designated critical habitat for SBKR. SBKR would not occur at the study area.

CAGN Habitat Assessment
The habitat assessment determined that the study area has habitat that could be suitable for CAGN, which consists of approximately 1.0 acre of California buckwheat scrub on the south facing slope north of and abutting East 15th Street in the western part of the study area (Figure 2). In addition, 10.6 acres of habitat in the eastern part of the survey area was determined as suitable for CAGN (Figure 2).

However, there are number of factors that suggest CAGN have a low potential to occur in the survey area. First, the study area occurs as a small island in a large matrix of urban development, making discovery, colonization, and dispersal potentially challenging. Second, existing known CAGN

Figure 2. California Gnatcatcher Suitable Habitat Legend CAGN suitable habitat (11.6 acres)
1000 ft
N
➤➤
NPage 3198 of 3744

3 | Page
occupied habitat is not recorded nearby; the closest CAGN record is 5 miles to the northeast in an area that does not have any records since 1999. The next closest records occur 9 miles to the west near Bonelli Park where they appear to be regularly present. Finally, CAGN were not detected during the January 9 2023, June 3 or July 1, 2022 surveys, nor during five (5) surveys conducted by RCA (2022) between January 25 and April 22, 2022. Considering these factors, CAGN have a low potential to occur in the survey area.

Least Bell’s Vireo
In the eastern portion of the survey area, narrow strips of riparian vegetation at the north and south edges of the basin combined with non-native woodland habitat that separates the basin from the golf course, could provide suitable breeding habitat to the state and federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) (Figure 3). Due to isolation of the survey area from other suitable habitat and the small size of the suitable habitat (2.5 acres), least Bell’s vireo is considered to have a low potential to occur in the eastern part of the survey area.

Species Observed
Thirty-one avian species were observed during the habitat assessment: Cana da goose (on golf course), American white pelican (overhead), mourning dove, Anna's hummingbird, Cooper's hawk, red-tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk, acorn woodpecker, northern flicker, Nuttall’s woodpecker, black phoebe, Say's phoebe, Cassin's kingbird, California scrub-jay, American crow, common raven, oak titmouse, barn swallow, cliff swallow, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, American robin, northern mockingbird, house finch, lesser goldfinch, white-crowned sparrow, spotted towhee, California towhee, hooded oriole, yellow-rumped warbler, and common yellowthroat.

Other species observed were western toad (tadpoles), Pacific tree frog, western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Likely due to the regular presence of ribwort plantain, a commonly used caterpillar host plant, butterfly activity in the basin area was high. In the western part of the survey area, monarch (Danaus plexippus) was observed, although its host plant (milkweed) was not recorded.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The western part of the survey area was mechanically disturbed between 2020 and 2021 when much of the sage scrub vegetation was cleared; it is currently recovering from this disturbance with scattered young shrubs, such as California buckwheat and deerweed, along with grasses and other ruderal vegetation. The eastern part of the survey area is dominated by California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub with some riparian and wetland vegetation present, although the cattail patches had been mechanically removed between the July 2022 and January 2023 field visits. The study area was confirmed not to be suitable for SBKR and is outside of their current or historical range. Approximately

9.7 acres of California buckwheat scrub and California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub habitat was found to be potentially suitable for CAGN on the site, but is judged to have a low potential to occur. To confirm they are absent, a focused breeding or non-breeding survey may be warranted.

Figure 3. Least Bell's Vireo Suitable Habitat Legend
LBVI suitable habitat (2.5 acres)
600 ft
N
➤➤
NPage 3200 of 3744

4 | Page
A small patch of potentially suitable habitat for breeding least Bell’s vireo was observed in the eastern part of the survey area. Should project-related activities need to remove this habitat, a focused breeding survey for least Bell’s vireo may be warranted.

A total of seven (8) areas of hydric vegetation were observed, one associated with the culverts at the western end of the basin, four small patches due to golf course drainage, one larger patch at east end of basin, and two narrow strips of riparian vegetation at the north and south parts of the basin in the eastern portion of the survey area. The presence of these drainages may warrant further investigation, such as an updated formal jurisdictional delineation, to determine if removal during project development may require regulatory permits from agencies such as the California Regional Water Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or the Army Corps of Engineers.

During the January 2023 survey it was observed that the large eastern patch of cattail as well as others appear to have been mechanically removed and stockpiled nearby.

I certify that the information submitted in this report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. Please let me know if you have any questions on this report. I can be reached at (909) 810-0718 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mikael Romich
Senior Biologist
C+1 909.810.0718
[email protected]
originbiology.com
Literature Cited
RCA Associates. 2022. General Biological Resources Assessment (APN: 3105-171-08). Prepared for: The Colonies Partners, LLC. 37 p.

Appendix A – Site Photographs
Photo 1. Example of the ruderal habitat within the basin in the central part of the survey area. On the southern slope scalebroom shrubs are evident.

Photo 2. Example of the ruderal habitat within the basin in the western part of the survey area.

Photo 3. Example of California buckwheat scrub located in the southwestern part of the survey area that is suitable for California gnatcatcher.

Photo 4. Example of California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub located in the eastern part of the survey area that is suitable for California gnatcatcher.

Photo 5. Example of California sagebrush-California buckwheat scrub located in the eastern part of the survey area that is suitable for California gnatcatcher.

Photo 6. Example of one of the hydrophytic vegetation areas in the survey area supported by golf course run-off.

Photo 7. July 2022 example of a hydrophytic vegetation area in the survey area supported by golf course run-off.

Photo 8. January 2023 after hydrophytic vegetation removal activities.

Photo 9. Eastern part of study area where cattails were removed and stockpiled nearby.

Photo 10. In the background is riparian habitat and non-native woodland in the eastern part of the survey area that that is suitable for least Bell’s vireo.

Photo 11. Example of mulefat scrub in the eastern part of the survey area that that is suitable for least Bell’s vireo.

Photo 12. Western part of survey area that is developed with urban landscaping.

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-3

NESTING BIRD AND CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER 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

DBS, UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91784
(951) 545-2457 - [email protected]

Summary Report
To: Joshua Winter, Senior Planner, Planning Division,
Development Services Department, City of Upland
From: Eric Dugan, Dugan Biological Services (DBS)
Report Date: 5/10/2023
Re: Villa Serena Specific Plan; Nesting Bird and
California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment

At the request of The Colonies Partners, L.P., DBS conducted a general habitat assessment for California Gnatcatcher and nesting birds at the proposed Villa Serena Specific Plan Project (APNs1045-121-04, 1045-151-35, 0207-483-46 and 0207-483-46) site in Upland, California. The site is situated in an urban area north of East 15th Street and Red Hill North Drive, east of Fernando Avenue, and west of Cer rito Rojo Drive in the city of Upland, San Bernardino County, California. Surrounding land use includes two country clubs, an RV and boat storage facility, and numerous residential developments. This summary report presents the methods and results of the habitat assessments, and discusses mitigation recommendations associated with construction.

Methods

For purposes of reporting, the Project site was divided into two sections. The Western section includes the locations of 65 proposed single-family homes, associated roads, and residential infrastructure (Photos 1-2). The Eastern section includes part of the existing basin where impacts will be limited to minimal grading, and where the preservation of native habitats is planned (Photos 3-4). Figure 2 of the Biological Resources Technical Report (Aspen, 2023) associated with the project illustrates the approximate boundaries of the western and eastern portions of the site.

DBS Senior Biologist, Dr. Eric Dugan conducted a pedestrian visual-encounter survey (Table 1) of the site on 16 April, 2023. Binoculars were used to locate, identify, and observe behavior of native avian species. When possible, avian calls and songs were used to identify species present on site. The survey provided 100% coverage of the Project, and included suitable habitats (e.g., tree and hedge rows ) immediately adjacent to the Project limits. Field efforts focused on identifying and determining suitable nesting habitats for native bird species, and determining habitat suitability for California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica).

DBS, UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91784
(951) 545-2457 - [email protected]

Table 1. Site visit and habitat assessment details

DATE PERSONNEL FIELD CONDITIONS
4/16/23 Eric Dugan Time: 0830-1015
Temperature: 52 F (start), 55 F (end);
Winds: W6 mph (start), W4 mph (end)
Visibility: Good, partly cloudy

Results
Nesting Bird Habitat Assessment
A total of 19 native avian species (Sibley, 2000) were observed during the site visit (Table 2). Vegetation communities found on-site included ruderal, hydrophytic, and mixed California buckwheat scrub. A mature tree line is located along the Northern edge of the site, consisting primarily of non-native tree species that have encroached from the golf course located to the north. Previous reports (RCA, 2018; Aspen, 2023) provide additional details and discussion on the species composition and abundance of vegetation communities found on site.

Nine native bird species were observed on the Western half of the project (Table 2). No special-status species were observed. The Western half of the site has been mechanically cleared in the recent past, resulting in sparse ruderal vegetation dominating this portion of the site. Small patches of hydrophytic vegetation are found in association with several swales and runoff culverts entering the site from surrounding urban sources. Nesting habitats for most native species were largely absent within the cleared ruderal habitats.

The Western half of the site lacks mature native vegetative structure, significantly reducing suitability for nesting birds. Avian activity, abundance, and diversity were all notably low in the Western half of the site.

Fifteen native bird species were observed on the Eastern half of the project (Table 2). No special-status species were observed. The Eastern half of the site was generally less disturbed and had not undergone mechanical clearance as recently as the Western half.

As a result, native vegetation was more diverse and became increasingly dense from west to east. A mixed California buckwheat scrub was the dominant vegetation community, being most abundant and well -developed on sloped areas. A mosaic of smaller interspersed areas of ruderal and hydrophytic vegetation was also noted. Localized patches of hydrophytic vegetation were found in association with swales and runoff culverts entering the site from surrounding urban sources. Avian activity, abundance, and diversity were highest in the Eastern half of the site.

California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment
California Gnatcatcher was not observed on site during the habitat assessment. Suitable habitat consisting of dense mixed California buckwheat scrub was observed along the Eastern half of the site. As part of the habitat assessment, the biologist spent time

DBS, UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91784
(951) 545-2457 - [email protected]
listening for the distinctive calls of California Gnatcatcher. None were heard during the site visit.

Discussion
Nesting Bird Habitat Assessment
The Project proposes the development of 65 single family homes located in the Western half of the site, whereas the Eastern half of the site will remain preserved. This approach will result in the majority of work occurring in areas largely absent of suitable nesting habitats. The construction plan to avoid impacts to the Eastern half of the site, will serve to preserve the highest quality nesting bird habitat and ensure native birds continued access to the best foraging and nesting habitats found on site. Additionally, the absence of special-status species further suggests that overall impacts to nesting birds are minimal.

In order to mitigate impacts during construction, vegetation removal should occur outside of the recognized nesting bird season which generally runs from February 15th to August 31st. If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey is recommended in order to locate and identify any active nests. If active nests are identified, additional mitigation measures (e.g., avoidance buffers and biological monitoring) should then be implemented to prevent the take of an active nest.

California Gnatcatcher
Although suitable habitat was observed on site, the likelihood of California Gnatcatcher inhabiting the site is low. Suitable habitats on site are immediately adjacent to and bound by numerous residential developments, a maintained dirt access road, and an active golf course. California Gnatcatcher are typically found in areas of larger, intact patches of suitable habitat. Currently occupied California Gnatcatcher habitats are not known within 5-miles of the site (Aspen, 2023), and recolonization of the site remains unlikely.

Additionally, focused surveys conducted between January-April, 2022 and June-July, 2022 failed to detect the presence of the species.

References
Aspen Environmental Group (2023). Biological Technical Report. Villa Serena Specific Plan (Tracer No. 20245) Project
RCA Associates Inc.(2018). General Biological Resources Assessment. Upland Colonies 59, Upland, San Bernardino County, California.

Sibley, D.A. (2000). The Sibley Guide to Birds. First Edition. Chanticleer Press Incorporated, New York, USA.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Dr. Eric A.

Dugan at [email protected] or (951) 545-2457.

DBS, UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91784
(951) 545-2457 - [email protected]
Table 2. Avian species observed on-site during the habitat assessment, with location of observation and special status designation.

COMMON NAME OBSERVATION LOCATION SPECIAL STATUS
American Crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Western Half No
Anna’s Hummingbird
Calypte anna
Eastern and Western Halves No
Barn Swallow
Hirundo rustica
Eastern Half No
Bewick’s Wren
Thyromanes bewickii
Eastern Half No
Black Phoebe
Sayornis nigricans
Eastern Half No
Bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
Eastern Half No
California Towhee
Melozone crissalis
Eastern and Western Halves No
Cooper’s Hawk
Accipiter cooperii
Eastern Half No
House Finch
Haemorhous mexicanus
Eastern and Western Halves No
Lesser Goldfinch
Spinus psaltria
Eastern Half No
Northern Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Eastern and Western Halves No
Mourning Dove
Zenaida macroura
Western Half No
Bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
Eastern Half No
Red -shouldered Hawk
Buteo lineatus
Eastern Half No
Red -tailed Hawk
Bute o jamaicensis
Western Half No
Western Scrub Jay
Aphelocoma californica
Eastern and Western Halves No
Western Kingbird
Tyrannus verticalis
Eastern Half No
White-crowned Sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Eastern and Western Halves No

DBS, UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91784
(951) 545-2457 - [email protected]
Photo 1. Large culvert near the Western end of the site, facing east.

Photo 2. Ruderal vegetation within the Western half of the site, facing east.

DBS, UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91784
(951) 545-2457 - [email protected]
Photo 3. Potential nesting habitats along the Eastern half of the site, facing east.

Photo 4. California buckwheat scrub along the Eastern half of the site, facing north.

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-4

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION 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

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION 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

September 2023 (Revised June 2025)

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 ii
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Villa Serena Specific Plan (Tract No. 20245) Project
Upland, California
The undersigned certify that this report is a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions of a jurisdictional determination and delineation for the above- referenced project.

Justin M. Wood, M.S.

Senior Biologist
Aspen Environmental Group
September 2023

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
i September 2023
Contents

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

1.1 Lead Agency Name and Address ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Site Access ........................................................................................................................................ 1

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

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

2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Topography and Surrounding Land Use .......................................................................................... 2

3.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 2

3.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................. 4

3.4 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.5 Soils and Geology ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.0 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................ 5

4.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ................................................................................................. 6

4.2 Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ...................... 7

4.3 Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code ........................................................................ 7

5.0 Waters and Wetlands Delineation Methodology ..................................................................... 8

5.1 Wetland Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................................. 8

5.2 Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. ...................................................................................................... 8

5.3 RWQCB Waters of the State ............................................................................................................ 9

5.4 CDFW Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................................................. 9

6.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 9

6.1 Wetland Waters of the U.S. ........................................................................................................... 11

6.2 Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. .................................................................................................... 11

6.3 RWQCB Waters of the State .......................................................................................................... 11

6.4 CDFW Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................................................... 11

7.0 Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 11

8.0. Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 12 Ta bles
Table 1: Driving Directions to the Project site ............................................................................................ 1 Table 2: Vegetation and Other Cover Types on the Project Site ................................................................ 3 Table 3: Soil Units Occurring in the Project Site ......................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands within the Project Site ......................................................... 9

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 iv
Attachments
Attachment 1: Figures
Figure 1: Project Overview
Figure 2: Vegetation and Land Cover
Figure 3: Soils
Figure 4: Jurisdictional Resources
Attachment 2: Photo Exhibit
Attachment 3. Federal Non-Wetland and Wetland Waters Indicator Information Attachment 4. Arid West OHWM and Wetland Determination Data Sheets Attachment 5. Observed Plant Species List and Wetland Indicator Status

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
1 September 2023

1.0 Introduction
This report was prepared by Aspen Environmental Group (Aspen) to describe the aquatic 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 preliminary data on the extent of resources under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

1.1 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Upland, Development Services Department
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786

1.2 Contact Person and Phone Number
Robert D. Dalquest, AICP, MPA, MURP
Development Services Director
Phone: (909) 931-4148
Email: [email protected]

1.3 Site Access
Driving directions to the project site are provided below in Table 1.

Table 1. Driving Directions to the Project Site
From The Greater Los Angeles Area of Southern California:

Take Interstate 10 east towards San Bernardino.

Take exit 51 onto Euclid Ave. north.

Travel north of Euclid Ave. approximately 1.8 miles and turn right on E 14th St.

Travel east on E 14th St. approximately 1.05 miles and turn left on Alta Ave.

Travel north one block on Alta Ave. and make left turn onto E 15th St.

Make a quick right turn at a chain link gate to enter the Project site.

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

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 2
Street Basin will remain as a functioning flood control basin and will be excavated to increase its storage capacity, referred to as the Conservation Area throughout this report. The basin will also be preserved and enhanced to off-set the loss of riparian and wetland vegetation.

2.2 Project Location
The project site 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 Southern California Edison Padua Station are located to the southwest and northwest of Campus Avenue.

3.0 Existing Conditions

3.1 Topography and Surrounding Land Use
The project site is located within the City of Upland, approximately three miles from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The project site is located just south of the Upland Hills Country Club and just north of the Red Hill Country Club. Other than the golf courses to the north and south of the project site, the project site is largely surrounded by dense residential development.

3.2 Vegetation
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.

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.

Vegetation within the project site consists of riparian and wetland vegetation, up land vegetation, and other land cover types. They are described in detail below and acreages of the vegetation and land cover areas are presented in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2 (Attachment 1).

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
3 September 2023
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), 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, 2022).

Mulefat thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance). Mulefat thickets are a winter deciduous shrubland that are dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). 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 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, 2022).

Upland Vegetation Types
California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance). California buckwheat scrub is a type of coastal sage scrub dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Other species such as pine bush (Ericameria pinifolia), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides), coastal sage brush (Artemisia californica), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). 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, 2022).

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, 2022).

Table 2. 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

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 4
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 (Lepidospartum squamatum).

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, 2022).

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, 2022).

3.3 Climate
Climate in the region is temperate, with mild winters and hot, dry summers. Average temperatures near the project site in Ontario, California include an average low temperature of 53 degrees Fahrenheit and an average high temperature of 78 degrees Fahrenheit (U.S. Climate Data, 2022). 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).

3.4 Hydrology
Surface flows in the region generally enter Cucamonga Creek, approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site through a series of storm drains and other infrastructure. Surface flows that enter the project site, have largely been disconnected from the rest of the watershed and now originate in the Upland Hills Country Club and surrounding residential developments, within approximately 0.5 miles of the project site. Flows enter the project site through a series of concrete-lined swales and channels that convey flows to the bottom of 15th Street Basin. Most flows that enter the basin appear to percolate into the ground, and very little flows off-site into a storm drain at the west end of the project site. Flows that leave the project site, enter the 15th Street Interceptor and travel west approximately 0.15 miles before they merge with 15th Street Storm Drain. Flows continue downstream approximately 7.3 miles through various channels and basins before entering Cucamonga Creek Channel. Flows then continue downstream, approximately 11 miles before merging with the Santa Ana River within Prado Basin. Approximately 30 miles downstream flows enter the Pacific Ocean which is recognized by the USACE as a traditional navigable water (TNW) thereby establishing surface connectivity of the project site to navigable waters.

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) defines nested hydrologic units, beginning with regions that are subdivided into subregions, basins, subbasins and watersheds. The project site is located within the South Coast Hydrologic Region of southern California (CDWR, 2004). It is also located in the Cucamonga Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (CDWR, 2004). The project site is located within the larger Santa Ana River Watershed, an area of more than 2,400-square-mile (6,200 square kilometer).

Elevations in the watershed range from 1,520 feet (463 meter) in the northern portion of the Upland Hills Country Club to 1,425 feet (434 meter) in the western end of the project site. The project site is currently

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
5 September 2023
mapped in the National Wetland Inventory as freshwater emergent wetland habitat (PEM1Cx ) and as freshwater pond habitat (PUSCx and PUBFx) (USFWS 2022).

3.5 Soils and Geology

3.5.1 Soils
Historic soil data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was used to determine potential soil types, including where hydric soils have historically occurred, within the project site (NRCS, 2022). Figures 3 (Attachment 1) illustrates the location of historic soil types identified in the project site.

Detailed information on elevation ranges, parent material, flooding potential, and drainage classes for each map unit symbol is provided below.

Table 3. Soil Units Occurring in the Project Site (acres) Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Soil
(Yes or No)
Development
Area (Acres)
Conservation
Area (Acres)
Project Site
(Acres)
SoC Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9
percent slopes No 0.10 0.16 0.27
SpC Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9
percent slopes No 17.79 4.12 21.81
Total: 17.79 4.29 22.08
Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes. Soboba gravelly loamy sand soil is found in alluvial fans derived from sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from granite. It is an excessively drained soil. It is found in areas with 0 to 9 percent slopes at elevations of about 30 to 4,200 feet. Water table depth is typically more than 80 inches, and these areas never flood. The substrate is comprised of gravelly loamy sand (0 to 10 inches), very gravelly loamy sand (12 to 36 inches), and very stony sand (36 to 60 inches).

Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Soboba stony loamy sand soil is found in alluvial fans derived from granite. It is an excessively drained soil. It is found in areas with 2 to 9 percent slopes at elevations of about 960 to 3,690 feet. Water table depth is typically more than 80 inches, and these areas never flood. The substrate is comprised of stony loamy sand (0 to 10 inches), very stony loamy sand (10 to 24 inches), and very stony sand (24 to 60 inches).

3.5.2 Geology
The project site is located on an extensive alluvial fan below the San Gabriel Mountains, formed by Cucamonga Creek over millions of years. The quaternary age alluvium consists of unconsolidated to loosely consolidated sand, gravel, and silt with a few beds of compacted clay deposit by streams draining the San Gabriel Mountains. The gravels of alluvial fans are relatively coarse throughout (CDWR, 2004).

Several faults are present in the vicinity of the project site, including the Cucamonga Fault, the Red Hill- Etiwanda Avenue Fault, and the Indian Hill Fault (CDWR, 2004).

4.0 Regulatory Background
Jurisdictional waters, including some wetlands and riparian habitats, are regulated by the USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW. The USACE Regulatory Program regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344; CWA); the CDFW

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 6
regulates activities under the Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1607; and the RWQCB regulates activities under Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

4.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged material, placement of fill material, or certain types of excavation within “waters of the U.S.” (resulting in more than incidental fallback of material) and authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for such actions.

Permits can be issued for individual projects (individual permits) or for general categories of projects (general permits). The definition of federally jurisdictional wetlands and “waters of the U.S.” have changed several times recently and the latest interpretation of the CWA is discussed below.

In 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) updated the CWA and their definition of navigable waters (USACE and USEPA, 2020). The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) revised the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” to encompass traditional navigable waters; perennial and intermittent tributaries that contribute surface waters flow to such waters; certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters. Ephemeral waters were not included in the NWPR definition of “Waters of the U.S.” In 2021, the USEPA and USACE were directed by the Biden Administration and the U.S. District Court to vacate the 2020 NWPR and revert to the pre-2020 rule. On January 18, 2023, the USEPA published the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” (the January 2023 Rule), with a definition of “Waters of the U.S” that reutilized the 2006 Rapanos ruling’s permanent and significant nexus standards.

Most recently on May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the significant nexus standard is inconsistent with the CWA. On August 29, 2023, the USACE and USEPA issued a prepublication of the final rule to amend the January 2023 Rule and define “Waters of the U.S.” as follows, once again not including ephemeral waters:
•Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters (referred to as “(a)(1) waters”).
•Impoundments of “Waters of the U.S.”, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) (referred to as “(a)(2) waters”).
•Tributaries to traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water (referred to as “(a)(3) waters” or “jurisdictional tributaries”).
•Wetlands adjacent to and having a continuous surface connection with (a)(1) waters or relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing (a)(2) waters (referred to as “jurisdictional adjacent wetlands”).
•Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified as (a)(1) through (4) waters that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to (a)(1) or (a)(3) waters.

The January 2023 Rule exclusions from the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” remain the same, including, but not limited to, prior converted cropland and ditches excavated wholly in and draining only dry land not carrying a relatively permanent flow of water.

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
7 September 2023
On April 6, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the 2021 order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that vacated the USEPA’s 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule. Therefore, the CWA section 401 certification process is once again governed by the CWA section 401 certification regulations promulgated by USEPA in 2020 (40 CFR 121). On June 1, 2022, the USEPA Administrator signed a proposed rule to improve the CWA section 401 certification process. The proposed rule would replace and update the existing regulations at 40 CFR 121, to be more consistent with the statutory text of the 1972 CWA and clarify elements of section 401 certification practice that has evolved over the 50 years since the 1971 regulation was promulgated. On June 9, 2022, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (EPA, 2022).

4.2 Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
The RWQCBs regulate activities affecting ‘waters of the State’ according to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 of the federal CWA. The Porter -Cologne Act defines waters of the State as all surface and subsurface waters. The RWQCBs may issue permits (called Waste Discharge Requirements or WDRs) or may issue a waiver for a given application. In addition, the RWQCB recently started to implement a new regulatory program for all waters of the State.

On April 2, 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The adopted definitions and procedure allow for the presence of hydric substrates as a criterion for wetland identification (not just wetland soils) and wetland hydrology for an area devoid of vegetation (less than 5% cover) to be considered a wetland. Waters of the State are typically delineated based on the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) in the field as defined by federal guidelines (SWRCB, 2022; see also USACE, 2008) as the limits of jurisdiction. However, waters of the State include isolated waters and need not have downstream surface connection to federally jurisdictional waters. The new program uses the soils, hydrology, and vegetation criteria to identify wetlands, but may define certain unvegetated sites (e.g., mud flats or playas) as wetlands based on only the soils and hydrology criteria. The definition of “waters of the State” excludes certain types of artificial wetlands greater than or equal to one acre in size, including, but not limited to, those constructed and currently used and maintained for “detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a mu nicipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program” (SWRCB, 2022). The project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

Section 401 of the CWA requires that:
…any applicant for a Federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to “waters of the State,” shall provide the Federal permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions under the Federal Clean Water Act.

Therefore, before the USACE may issue a Section 404 permit, a permittee must apply for and receive a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RQWCB, Santa Ana Region. The RWQCB may add conditions to their certification to remove or mitigate potential impacts to water quality standards.

4.3 Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires any person, State or local governmental agency, or public utility which proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 8
or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or use materials from a streambed, or result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake, to first notify the CDFW of the proposed project. Notification is generally required for any project that will take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation.

Based on the notification materials submitted, the CDFW will determine if the proposed project may impact fish or wildlife resources.

If the CDFW determines that a proposed project may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) will be required. A completed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document must be submitted to CDFW before a SAA will be issued.

5.0 Waters and Wetlands Delineation Methodology
The assessment of jurisdictional wetlands, waters of the United States (U.S.), waters of the State, and other jurisdictional habitats was conducted by Aspen biologists Justin Wood and Jacob Aragon on June 24 and August 15, 2022. Prior to conducting the field assessment Wood reviewed current and historic aerial photographs, the San Bernardino County Soil Survey (NRCS, 2022), and the local and state hydric soil list (NRCS, 2022) to evaluate the potential active channels and wetland features in the project site. Wood also reviewed the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2022) and the 2016 wetland plant ratings in the National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al., 2016).

Site maps were generated with available aerial photographs and potentially jurisdictional features were identified and marked with lines and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates to assist in field verification. During the field assessment, vegetation and hydrology were mapped using an Arrow GPS unit and identified on aerial photographs (Figure 4, Attachment 1). Field maps were digitized using Global Information System (GIS) and total state and federal jurisdictional areas were calculated. Representative site photos were captured during the survey and are included in this report (see Attachment 2).

5.1 Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Federal wetlands, where present, were delineated using the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the Arid West Supplement (2008) based on three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (USACE, 1987, 2008). The project site had very few locations that had a potential to support federal wetlands, therefore the biologists did not sample along transects but instead focused on the four drainage features directly. In addition, an assessment of downstream connectivity was also completed to determine if features within the project site connect with downstream TNW.

5.2 Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

Jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. were delineated based on the limits of the ordinary high- water mark (OHWM), where present, as determined by changes in physical and biological features, such as bank erosion, deposited vegetation or debris, and vegetative characteristics. In the Arid West region, the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) indicates the limits of high flows in low- to moderate-discharge events (USACE, 2008). See Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Attachment 3 (Federal Non-Wetland and Wetland Waters Indicator Information Potential Geomorphic and Vegetative Indicators of Ordinary High-Water Marks for

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
9 September 2023
the Arid West) for a list of key physical features used for determining the OHWM identified by the arid west manual. OHWM datasheets were completed at two locations within the project site, using the methods described in Curtis and Lichvar (2010).

5.3 RWQCB Waters of the State
RWQCB waters of the state generally match the limits of the waters of the U.S. described above. The RWQCB waters of the state are generally delineated based on the limits of the OHWM as determined by changes in physical and biological features, such as bank erosion, deposited vegetation or debris, and vegetative characteristics. If waters of the U.S. are not present, the RWQCB may exert jurisdiction that matches the jurisdiction of CDFW, under Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB) is the state agency responsible for regulating waters of the State throughout the project site.

In addition, the RWQCB can take jurisdiction over wetlands of the State if the area has hydric substrates and wetland hydrology present, as described above for Wetlands Waters of the U.S.

5.4 CDFW Jurisdictional Waters
CDFW jurisdiction was delineated to the tops of the channel banks or to the edge of the adjacent riparian vegetation, where present. CDFW jurisdictional streambeds were mapped to the top of the banks which was adjacent to upland vegetation throughout much of the project site. CDFW has jurisdiction over a larger area than the federal jurisdiction, therefore the total acreage of CDFW jurisdictional streambeds includes all federally jurisdictional waters of the U.S., where present, as well as additional adjacent state jurisdictional streambeds and vegetation.

6.0 Results
One category of jurisdictional feature was documented within the project site: CDFW jurisdictional streambeds (refer to Figure 4, Attachment 1). All four of the drainage features are not expected to fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE because drainage 1 experiences ephemeral flows and drainages 2, 3, and 4 largely lack downstream connectivity with TNW. None of the four human-made drainage features are expected to fall under the jurisdiction of the SARWQCB either due to their being located wholly within a human-made artificial stormwater management basin permitted by the Area-wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program issued by the SARWQCB (SARWQCB, 2010). Table 4 and Figure 4 (Attachment 1) show locations and acreages of CDFW jurisdictional features within the project site.

Attachment 4 also contains the Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Arid West Region and the Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets that were completed during the assessment. Attachment 5 includes all plants observed on the project site and includes their wetland indicator status.

Table 4. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands within the Project Site Drainage
Number
USACE Waters of
the U.S.

SARWQCB Waters
of the State
Data Sheet
Number
Cowardin
Classification1
Dominant
Vegetation1
CDFW
Jurisdictional
Streambeds
(acres)
Area
(acres)
Length
(ft.)
Area
(acres)
Length
(ft.)
1 -- -- -- -- Wetland 1 &
OHWM 1 R4SB Cattail marsh 0.08
2 -- -- -- -- N/A R4SB Cattail marsh 0.02
3 -- -- -- -- N/A R4SB Cattail marsh 1.32

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 10
Table 4. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands within the Project Site Drainage
Number
USACE Waters of
the U.S.

SARWQCB Waters
of the State
Data Sheet
Number
Cowardin
Classification1
Dominant
Vegetation1
CDFW
Jurisdictional
Streambeds
(acres)
Area
(acres)
Length
(ft.)
Area
(acres)
Length
(ft.)
4 -- -- -- -- N/A R4SB Cattail marsh 1.48
Total -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.90
Note:
1 = The dominant Cowardin Classification and vegetation type was used for each drainage. •Drainage 1 – Drainage 1 is a small, isolated human-made drainage feature located at the west end of the project site near a storm drain intake. Drainage 1 was mapped as a CDFW Streambed.

Drainage 1 is mapped as cattail marsh and is dominated by species such as castor bean (Ricinus communis), jungle grass (Echinochloa colona), umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus), and Dallis grass. At the time of the survey, drainage 1 was completely dry but did have a defined OHWM.

Although drainage 1 has downstream connectivity to TNW, it was not mapped as USACE waters of the U.S. as it appears to ephemerally convey collected stormwater sheet flow from the immediately adjacent uplands during storm events. It also does not appear to receive flows from the remainder of the project site to the east. Drainage 1 is mapped as freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1Cx) in the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2022). •Drainage 2 – Drainage 2 is small, incised isolated human-made drainage feature located just east of drainage 1. Drainage 2 was mapped as a CDFW Streambed. Drainage 2 is mapped as cattail marsh and is dominated by species such as marsh purslane, Spanish sunflower, and willow-herb (Epilobium ciliatum). It receives flows from a concrete-lined swale to the north of the drainage that receives runoff from the adjacent golf course. At the time of the survey, drainage 2 had no surface water present but the soil was wet. The drainage was approximately two feet lower the surrounding basin floor, creating an OHWM, however flows do not appear to fill drainage 2 to the point of allowing surface connectivity with drainage 1 to the west. Drainage 2 is mapped as freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1Cx) in the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2022). •Drainage 3 – Drainage 3 is larger isolated drainage feature located near the center of the project site. Drainage 3 was also mapped as a CDFW Streambed. Drainage 3 is largely mapped as cattail marsh and is dominated by species such as broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica), common plantain (Plantago major), and annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus). It receives flows from two concrete-lined swales to the north that receives runoff from the adjacent golf course. At the time of the survey, drainage 3 had no surface water present but the soil was wet. An earthen berm that is present in the basin floor, prevents flows from drainage 3 to flow west towards drainages 1 and 2. Drainage 3 is primarily mapped as freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1Cx) in the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2022). •Drainage 4 – Drainage 4 is larger isolated drainage feature located at the east end of the project site. Drainage 4 was also mapped as a CDFW Streambed. Drainage 4 is largely mapped as cattail marsh and is dominated by species such as broadleaf cattail, water speedwell, spearmint (Mentha spicata), and annual sunflower. It receives flows from three concrete-lined swales, one to the northeast, one to the southeast, and one to the north. These swales all convey runoff from the surrounding golf courses and residential development. At the time of the survey, drainage 4 had no surface water present but the soil was wet. High ground in the basin floor, prevents flows from

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT

11 September 2023
drainage 4 to flow west towards drainages 1, 2, and 3. Drainage 4 is primarily mapped as freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1Cx) in the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2022).

6.1 Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Based on the field assessment, including the wetland sample locations, no federal wetlands were determined to be present within the project site (see Figure 4, Attachment 1). This was based on a lack of any field indicators. The Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Arid West Region are included in Attachment 4.

6.2 Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.

Based on this assessment of OHWMs and Aspen’s professional opinion, no Waters of the U.S. were determined to be present within the project site (see Figure 4, Attachment 1). This was based on the ephemeral nature of drainage 1 and the lack of downstream connectivity to TNW. The Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets are included in Attachment 4.

6.3 RWQCB Waters of the State
Based on the field assessment and Aspen’s professional opinion, the drainage facilities are located within a permitted stormwater management basin (see Table 4 and Figure 4 of Attachment 1).

6.4 CDFW Jurisdictional Waters
Based on this assessment and Aspen’s professional opinion, approximately 2.90 acres within the project site meet the definition of CDFW jurisdictional streambeds and adjacent jurisdictional vegetation (see Table 4 and Figure 4 of Attachment 1). This includes drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4 as discussed above. This conclusion is primarily based on the presence of bed and bank and riparian vegetation. Of the 2.90 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambeds, 1.44 acres are within the development area and will be impacted by the project while the remaining 1.47 acres are within the conservation area.

7.0 Summary and Conclusions
The project site includes approximately 2.90 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambeds and adjacent jurisdictional vegetation were mapped based on the presence of clearly defined bed and banks and field observations.

The conclusions presented above represent Aspen’s professional opinion based on our knowledge and experience with the USACE, SARWQCB, and CDFW, including the applicable regulatory guidance documents and manuals. However, the USACE, SARWQCB, and CDFW have final authority in determining the status and presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waters and the extent of their boundaries.

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023 12

8.0. Literature Cited
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022. California Natural Community List. CDFW.

Sacramento. Online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2004. California’s Groundwater (Bulletin 118). [online]: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_02_CucamongaSubbasin.pdf.

Accessed September 2022.

Curtis, K.E. and R.W. Lichvar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TN-10-1.

Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Portals/16/docs/civilworks/regulatory/Jurisdiction/OHWMArid WestDatasheet.pdf.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 87:35318-35381 (June 9).

Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Public Works). 2022. Near Real-Time Precipitation Map. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/rainfall/ Accessed September 2022.

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1–17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey 2.0. [online]:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Accessed September 2022.

RCA Associates, Inc. 2022. General Biological Resources Assessment, Upland, San Bernardino County, California, APN: 3105-171-08.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evans. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 1300 pp.

SARWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernadino County within the Santa Ana Region. Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program. Order No. R8-2010-0036; NPDES No. CAS618036. January 29, 2010.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2022. State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2021-0012. Accessed September 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/ programs/cwa401/docs/wrapp/rs2021_0012.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. U.S. Army Cops Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. ______. 2008. Regional Supplement to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-

28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USACE and USEPA. (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule:

Definition of “Waters of the United States.” Federal Register 85:22250-22342 (22 Jun).

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
13 September 2023
______. 2023. Amendments to the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States.’” Final rule, prepublication copy issued August 29, 2023, pending publication in Federal Register.

U.S. Climate Data, 2022. U.S. Climate Data Website.
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ontario/california/united-states/usca2487 Accessed September 2022.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. National Wetland Inventory. [Online]:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html Accessed September 2022.

Attachment 1 – Figures

B
o
u
q
u
e
t
D
r
N
6 t
h
A
v
e
E 1 5 t h S t
Sawtoo t h D r
U pla n d H i l l s D r N
N
C
a
m
p
u
s
A
v
e
W i n g e d F o o t D r
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
S t A n d r e w s D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Upl and Hil ls
Cou ntr y Clu b
A l p i n e
S
p
r
u
c
e
M
o
n
t
e
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
C
r
a
w
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
E d d ingt o n S t
D
a
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
M
a
p
l
e E
d
g
e
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
G o l f C lubDr
Upland Hills Dr N
H ummingbirdLn
Upland H i l l s D r S
T
a
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
Grov
e
A
v
e
Spygla
s
s
D
r
R e d h i l l N o r t h Dr
C a l l e d e l P r a d o
V i a L a d e r a
V
ia
S
e
r
e
na
E 1 6 t h S t B a s e L i n e R d
R ed H ill Cou ntr y
C lub
B
u
e
n
a
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
Calle
Casino

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Project Location
F Project Site
Conservation Area
Residential Development Area
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 1
Project Overview
Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022.

E 1 5 t h S t
Sawtoo t h D r
W i n g e d F o o t D r
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
S t A n d r e w s D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Upland H ills
Countr y C lub
A l p i n e
E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
Upland Hills Dr N
Upland H i l l s D r S
A u g u s t a D r
Tanglew
o
o
d
A
v
e
Grove
A
v
e
R e d h i l l N o r t h D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Red Hi ll Countr y
Cl ub
F
0 500
Feet Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; NRCS, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022.

Figure 2
Soils
Soil Map Unit
SoC: Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
SpC: Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Project Site

E 1 5 t h S t
Sawtoo t h D r
W i n g e d F o o t D r
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
S t A n d r e w s D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Upland H ills
Countr y C lub
E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
Upland Hills Dr N
Upland H i l l s D r S
A u g u s t a D r
Tanglewo
o
d
A
v
e
Grove
A
v
e
R e d h i l l N o r t h D r
E 1 6 t h S t
Red Hi ll Countr y
Cl ub
F
Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022. 0 500
Feet
Project Site
Vegetation and Land Cover
California buckwheat scrub
Cattail marsh
Developed or Disturbed
Mulefat scrub
Ornamental trees
Scale broom scrub
Figure 3
Vegetation and Land Cover

Sawtoo t h D r
A
l
t
a
A
v
e
E 1 5 t h S t
W i n g e d F o o t D r
S t A n d r e w s D r M a s t e r s Dr
E 1 6 t h S t
Upland H ills
Countr y C lub
E 1 4 t h S t
A r m a n d o S t
Tanglewood
A
v
eUplandHillsDrN
Upland H i l l s D r S
A u g u s t a D r
Grove
A
v
e
R e d h i l l N o r t h D r
E 1 6 t h S t
1 2
3 4
F
0 500
Feet Sources: Aspen, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2022; Esri, 2022; The Colonies Partners, LP, 2022.

Figure 4
Jurisdictional Resources
CDFW Jurisdictional Streambeds
OHWM Sample Location 1
Wetland Sample Location 1
Project Site

Attachment 2 – Photo Exhibit

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
September 2023

Photo 1: East-facing view of Drainage 1 and wetland vegetation within the Development Area.

Photo 3: North-facing view of Drainage 2 within the Development Area.

Photo 2: South-facing view of Drainage 1 near the storm drain inlets within the Development Area.

Photo 4: Northwest-facing overview of the Development Area showing Drainages 1 and 2, in the western portion of the Project Site.

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN (TRACT NO. 20245) PROJECT
Septemebr 2023

Photo 5: Close-up view of dense cattail marshes within Drainage 3, within the Development Area.

Photo 7: Northeast-facing overview of cattail marshes at one of the side drainages within the Conservation Area.

Photo 6: Northeast-facing overview of cattail marshes in Drainage 3, within the Development Area.

Photo 8: Close-up view of wetland vegetation in Drainage 3 within the Conservation Area.

Attachment 3 – Federal Non-Wetland and Wetland Waters Indicator Information

Table 1. Potential Geomorphic Indicators of Ordinary High-Water Marks for the Arid West (A)Below OHW (B) At OHW (C) Above OHW

1.In-stream dunes

2. Crested ripples

3.Flaser bedding

4. Harrow marks 5. Gravel sheets to rippled sands6.Meander bars

7.Sand tongues

8.Muddy point bars 9.Long gravel bars10.Cobble bars behind obstructions

11.Scour holes downstream of
obstructions

12. Obstacle marks

13.Stepped-bed morphology in
gravel

14.Narrow berms and levees

15.Streaming lineations

16.Desiccation/mud cracks 17.Armored mud balls

18.Knick Points

1. Valley flat

2.Active floodplain

3.Benches: low, mid, most prominent

4.Highest surface of channel bars 5. Top of point bars 6.Break in bank slope

7.Upper limit of sand-sized particles

8.Change in particle size distribution9.Staining of rocks 10. Exposed root hairs below intact soil layer

11.Silt deposits

12.Litter (organic debris, small twigs and
leaves)

13.Drift (organic debris, larger than twigs)

1.Desert pavement

2. Rock varnish

3.Clast weathering

4.Salt splitting5. Carbonate etching6.Depositional topography

7.Caliche rubble

8.Soil development9.Surface color/tone10.Drainage development

11.Surface relief

12.Surface rounding
Table 2. Potential Vegetation Indicators of Ordinary High-Water Marks for the Arid West (D)Below OHW (E) At OHW (F)Above OHW
Hydroriparian
indicators

1.Herbaceous marsh species

2.Pioneer tree seedlings

3.Sparse, low vegetation

4.Annual herbs, hydromesic
ruderals

5.Perennial herbs, hydromesic
clonals

1.Annual herbs, hydromesic
ruderals

2.Perennial herbs,
hydromesic clonals

3.Pioneer tree seedlings

4.Pioneer tree saplings

1.Annual herbs, xeric ruderals

2.Perennial herbs, non-clonal

3.Perennial herbs, clonal and
non-clonal co-dominant

4.Mature pioneer trees, no
young trees

5.Mature pioneer trees
w/upland species

6.Late-successional species
Mesoriparian
Indicators

6.Pioneer tree seedlings

7.Sparse, low vegetation

8.Pioneer tree saplings

9.Xeroriparian species

5.Sparse, low vegetation
annual herbs, hydromesic

6.ruderals

7.Perennial herbs,
hydromesic clonals

8.Pioneer tree seedlings

9.Pioneer tree saplings

10.Xeroriparian species

11.Annual herbs, xeric
ruderals

7.Xeroriparian species

8.Annual herbs, xeric ruderals

9.Perennial herbs, non-clonal

10.Perennial herbs, clonal and
non-clonal codominant

11.Mature pioneer trees, no
young trees

12.Mature pioneer trees, xeric
understory

13.Mature pioneer trees
w/upland species

14.Late-successional species

15.Upland species
Xeroriparian
indicators

10.Sparse, low vegetation

11.Xeroriparian species

12.Annual herbs, xeric
ruderals

12.Sparse, low vegetation

13.Xeroriparian species

14.Annual herbs, xeric
ruderals

16.Annual herbs, xeric ruderals

17.Mature pioneer trees
w/upland species

18.Upland species

Table 3. Summary of Wetland Indicator Status
Category Probability
Obligate Wetland OBL Almost always occur in wetlands (estimated probability >99%) Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability of 67–99%) Facultative FAC Equally likely to occur in wetlands/non-wetlands (estimated probability of 34–66%) Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67–99%) Obligate Upland UPL Almost always occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability >99%) Non-Indicator NI No indicator status has been assigned
Source: Reed, 1988
Table 4. Wetland Hydrology Indicators*
Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators
Watermarks Oxidized Rhizospheres Associated with Living Roots Water-Borne Sediment Deposits FAC-Neutral Test
Drift Lines Water-Stained Leaves
Drainage Patterns Within Wetlands Local Soil Survey Data *Table adapted from 1987 USACE Manual and Related Guidance Documents.

Table 5. Wetland Hydrology Indicators for the Arid West* Primary Indicator (any one
indicator is sufficient to determine
that wetland hydrology is present)
Secondary Indicator (two or more
indicators are required to determine
that wetland hydrology is present)
Group A – Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils A1 – Surface Water X
A2 – High Water Table X
A3 – Saturation X
Group B – Evidence of Recent Inundation
B1 – Water Marks X (Non-riverine) X (Riverine)
B2 – Sediment Deposits X (Non-riverine) X (Riverine)
B3 – Drift Deposits X (Non-riverine) X (Riverine)
B6 – Surface Soil Cracks X
B7 – Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery X
B9 –Water-Stained Leaves X
B10 – Drainage X X
B11 – Salt Crust X
B12 – Biotic Crust X
B13 – Aquatic Invertebrates X
Group C – Evidence of Current or Recent Soil Saturation C1 – Hydrogen Sulfide Odor X
C2 – Dry-Season Water Table X
C3 – Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots
X
C4 – Presence of Reduced Iron X
C6 – Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X

Table 5. Wetland Hydrology Indicators for the Arid West* Primary Indicator (any one
indicator is sufficient to determine
that wetland hydrology is present)
Secondary Indicator (two or more
indicators are required to determine
that wetland hydrology is present)
C7 – Thin Muck Surface X
C8 – Crayfish Burrows X
C9 – Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery X
Group D – Evidence from other Site Conditions or Data
D3 – Shallow Aquitard X
D5 – FAC-Neutral Test X
*Table adapted from Regional Supplement to the USACE of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0.

Table 6. Field Indicators of Hydric Soil Conditions*

1.Indicators of Historical Hydric Soil Conditions 2. Indicators of Current Hydric Soil Conditions a.Histosols
b.Histic epipedons;
c.Soil colors (e.g., gleyed or low-chroma colors,
soils with bright mottles (Redoximorphic
features) and/or depleted soil matrix
d.High organic content in surface of sandy soils
e. Organic streaking in sandy soils
f.Iron and manganese concretions
g.Soil listed on county hydric soils list
a.Aquic or peraquic moisture regime (inundation and/or soil saturation for *7 continuous days)
b. Reducing soil conditions (inundation and/or soil saturation for *7 continuous days)
c. Sulfidic material (rotten egg smell)
*Table adapted from 1987 USACE Manual and Related Guidance Documents.

Table 7. Hydric Soil Indicators for the Arid West*
Hydric Soil Indicators Hydric Soil Indicators
for Problem Soils** All Soils Sandy Soils Loamy and Clay Soils A1 – Histosol S1 – Sandy Mucky Mineral F1 – Loamy Mucky Mineral A9 – 1 cm Muck A2 – Histic Epipedon S4 – Sandy Gleyed Matrix F2 – Loamy Gleyed Matrix A10 – 2 cm Muck A3 – Black Histic S5 – Sandy Redox F3 – Depleted Matrix F18 – Reduced Verti A4 – Hydrogen Sulfide S6 – Stripped Matrix F6 – Redox Dark Surface TF2 – Red Parent Material A5 – Stratified Layers — F7 – Depleted Dark Surface Other (See Section 5 of Regional Supplement, Version 2.0)
A9 – 1 cm Muck — F8 – Redox Depressions —
A11 – Depleted Below
Dark Surface
— F9 – Vernal Pools —
A12 – Thick Dark Surface — — —
*Table adapted from Regional Supplement to the USACE of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0. ** Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present

Attachment 4 – Arid West OHWM and Wetland Determination Data Sheets

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Yd\41 .Sev--ctA .... / JS·•lt s+,.,._,. 1~;;.-,,,. Date: l(l'l/zozz. Time: 07i'tJ Project Number: J"., 72. oc, 1 Town: vyJ/4, . .,. i;.., Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:

Investi ator s : -
Location Details: Y O / N ~ Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Y ~ IN O Is the site significantly disturbed?
rl-/5 ft,, 5)-u &,.:,L...,
Projection: Datum: "'"'''> 6--\
Coordinates: J'f' fl· a . '•iJ 117' · .. ,
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
(_.,.,;f-~•·"'-tV\ 5er.,1,.Jh }ttl,. dJ bl;s1~ fi;..111.J..,.c.j-t) ,.,_,;1 yJ?#1"J 7c, Ne,-/M.;/ 'fJ~ frc..v.s ),t.,L~~, "J.17 rwu,.f.f.. C/A;/N-".J,~ r>vow, be,s,.~ Brief site description:

IS -~I\ 5~ f;&o!>',"" R,;,w,,111.,.,._J 1::ie.>:--, )l.tv~,~~.-1 Checklist of resources (if available):
~ Aerial photography
Dates: 5/\'f'1i.f ,b/zcu
gJ Topographic maps
D Geologic maps
~ Vegetation maps
[i] Soils maps
D Rainfall/precipitation maps
D Existing delineation(s) for site
l)J Global positioning system (GPS)
D Other studies
D Stream gage data
Gage number:

Period of record:

D History of recent effective discharges
D Results of flood frequency analysis
D Most recent shift-adjusted rating
D Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5-year event
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Low-Flow Channels OHWM Paleo Channel
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:

1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.

2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.

3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.

4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.

5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
lgj Mapping on aerial photograph ~ GPS
D Di itized on com uter D Other:

Pro·ect ID: ~s11. 001 Cross section ID:

Cross section drawing:
01)\~ ("
OHWM
Indicators:

D Change in average sediment texture
~ Change in vegetation species
Ii] Change in vegetation cover
Comments:

Floodplain unit: D Low-Flow Channel
GPS point: "JI.I"' 1)7' ()b. S ., "-1 ll1' Jb 1 li-\ \,.J j
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Time: <J'Uo
~ Break in bank slope
D Other: ---------□ Other: ---------
D Active Floodplain ~ LowTerrace
Average sediment texture: ~ \ ca\A,\.

Total veg cover: __ % Tre : __ %
Community successional stage:

Shrub:__£____% Herb: Z.O %
□NA D Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:

D Mudcracks
D Ripples
D Drift and/or debris
D Presence of bed and bank
5!J Benches
Comments:
~ Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
D Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
~ Soil development
~ Surface relief
0 Other: ---------□ Other: ---------□ Other: ---------

Pro·ect ID: ,06 Cross section ID: \ Date: tZ Time: · t; o Floodplain unit: ~ Low-Flow Channel D Active Floodplain D Low Terrace G · 3"1) F.]1 ,, • • " PS pomt: ... v Dl,.tf N I l \7 J~' tl:3 \AJ Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: S'l-¼ C,t.~
Total veg cover: __ % Tree: __ %
Community successional stage:

Shrub: ID % Herb: qo %
□NA 0 Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:

D Mudcracks
0 Ripples
0 Drift and/or debris
0 Presence of bed and bank
D Benches
Comments:

Kl Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
0 Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
0 Soil development
0 Surface relief 0 Other: _______ _
D Other: ---------□ Other: _______ _
V.1...,, dtvi.1,( wef..i~,1,,,J l/~t;LJ-,..;..c~ t.L-...r dA, · ,, ,._ I {7 ''1 cl'/,,or-~vt(£_, Floodplain unit: D Low-Flow Channel D Active Floodplain D LowTerrace GPS point: ___________ _
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: _______ _
Total veg cover: __ % Tree: % Shrub: % Herb: %
Community successional stage:
□NA 0 Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
0 Mudcracks
0 Ripples
0 Drift and/or debris
0 Presence of bed and bank
D Benches
Comments:
0 Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
D Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
0 Soil development
0 Surface relief
D Other: ---------□ Other: ---------□ Other: _______ _
'

Attachment 5 – Observed Plant Species List and Wetland Indicator

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status

VASCULAR PLANTS

DICOTYLEDONS

ADOXACEAE ELDERBERRY FAMILY
Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue elderberry FACU

ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC FAMILY
Rhus aromatica Fragrant sumac FACU
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak FACU

APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY
*Nerium oleander Oleander UPL

ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual sandbur UPL
Artemisia californica California sagebrush UPL
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat FAC
Baccharis sarothroides Broom baccharis FACU
*Centaurea melitensis Tocalote UPL
Ericameria pinifolia Pinebush UPL
Helianthus annuus Annual sunflower FACU
*Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue FAC
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraphweed UPL
Lepidospartum squamatum Scalebroom FACU
*Logfia gallica Narrowleaf cottonrose UPL
Pseudognaphalium canescens Wright’s cudweed FACU
*Pulicaria paludosa Spanish false fleabane FAC
Senecio flaccidus var. douglasii Bush senecio UPL
*Sonchus asper ssp. asper Prickly sow thistle FAC
Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur FAC

BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Eriodictyon trichocalyx Hairy yerba santa UPL
Pectocarya linearis ssp. ferocula Slender comb seed UPL

BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
*Brassica fruticulosa Mediterranean cabbage UPL
*Hirschfeldia incana Short-pod mustard UPL
Nasturtium officinale Watercress OBL
*Raphanus sativus Jointed charlock UPL
*Sisymbrium orientale Indian hedge mustard UPL

CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY
Opuntia littoralis Prickly pear UPL

CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
*Dysphania ambrosioides Mexican tea FAC
*Salsola tragus Russian thistle FACU

CISTACEAE ROCKROSE FAMILY
Crocanthemum scoparium var. scoparium Peak rushrose UPL

CONVOLVULACEAE MORNINGGLORY FAMILY
Cuscuta sp. Unid. dodder UPL

CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY
Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla UPL

EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Croton californicus Desert croton UPL
Croton setiger Turkey-mulleion UPL
*Euphorbia peplus Petty spurge UPL
Euphorbia serpillifolia Thyme-leafed spurge UPL

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status
*Ricinus communis Castor bean FACU

FABACEAE PEA FAMILY
Acmispon glaber Deerweed UPL
Astragalus pomonensis Pomona milkvetch UPL
*Melilotus alba White sweet-clover UPL

FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak UPL

GROSSULARIACEAE CURRANT FAMILY
Ribes aureum Golden currant FAC

HYDROPHYLLACEAE WATERLEAF FAMILY
Emmenanthe penduliflora Whispering bells UPL
Phacelia ramosissima Branching phacelia FACU

LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
*Marrubium vulgare Common horehound FACU
*Mentha spicata Spearmint UPL

LYTHRACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe myrtle UPL

MORACEAE MULBERRY FAMILY
*Morus alba White mulberry FACU

MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY
*Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel FAC

MYRTACEAE EUCALYPTUS FAMILY
*Eucalyptus sp.Ornamental eucalyptus

OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus uhdei Shamel ash UPL

ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissoniopsis bistorta California sun cup UPL
Epilobium brachycarpum Annual fireweed FAC
Epilobium ciliatum Willow-herb FACW
Ludwigia peploides Floating water primrose OBL

PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY
Penstemon spectabilis Showy penstemon UPL
*Plantago major Common plantain FAC
*Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water speedwell OBL

PLANTANACEAE SYCAMORE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa California sycamore FAC
*Platanus ×hispanica London plane tree UPL

PHRYMACEAE LOPSEED FAMILY
Mimulus guttatus Seep monkeyflower OBL

POLEMONIACEAE PHLOX FAMILY
Navarretia hamata Hooked navarretia UPL

POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat UPL
*Rumex crispus Curly dock FAC

PORTULACAEAE PURSLANE FAMILY
*Portulaca oleraceae Common purslane UPL

RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Frangula californica California coffeeberry UPL

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Cercocarpus betuloides Birch leaf mountain mahogany UPL

SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY

Attachment 5. Project Species List
Latin Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status
Salix exigua Narrow-leaf willow FACW
Salix goodingii Gooding’s black willow FACW

SAPINDACEAE SOAPBERRY FAMILY
*Koelreuteria bipinnata Goldenrain tree UPL

SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii Jimsonweed UPL
*Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco FAC

ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY
*Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm UPL

MONOCOTYLEDONS

ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
*Washingtonia filifera California fan palm FAC

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY
Carex sp. Unid. sedge
*Cyperus involucratus Umbrella sedge FACW

LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY
Asparagus asparagoides African asparagus fern UPL

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome UPL
*Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome UPL
*Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass FACU
*Echinochloa colona Jungle rice FAC
*Ehrharta erecta Upright veldt grass UPL
*Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass UPL
*Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley FACU
*Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass FAC
*Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beard grass FACW
*Stipa miliacea Smilo grass UPL

TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail OBL
Species introduced to California are indicated by an asterisk. Special-status species are indicated by two asterisks. This list includes only species observed on the site. Others may have been overlooked or unidentifiable due to season (many plants are identifiable only in spring). Plants were identified using keys, descriptions, and illustrations in Baldwin et al (2012). Plant taxonomy and nomenclature generally follow Baldwin et al. (2012). Wetland Indicator Status are defined below. If a species had no status, if was assigned Upland, the least restrictive category. Notes:

UPL (Upland): Almost never occur in wetlands.

FACU (Facultative Upland): Usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in wetlands.

FAC (Facultative): Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. FACW (Facultative Wetland): Usually occur in wetlands but may occur in non-wetlands.

OBL (Obligate): Almost always occur in wetlands.

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 E

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE DATA

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

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

PRE-DEVELOPED RECHARGE VOLUME:

The existing 15th Street Basin has an outlet discharge bottom area of approximately 99,092 square feet (2.27 acres) that discharges to existing storm drain to the west and has four separate dead storage ponding areas in the easterly portion of the basin (See Exhibit A & B). The detention basin gently slopes from east to west where it then drains into existing storm drain pipes that route flows into a series of San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) regional detention basins north and south of 8th Street in the City of Upland, CA. The separate storage ponds A, B, C, and D are located just east of the discharge area of the basin (See Exhibits A & B) and are graded resulting in dead storage ponds. The area and volume of each basin can be seen in Table A-1c below. The total existing recharge volume is 280,870.74 cubic feet (6.45 acre-feet).

SUMMARY OF EXISTING GROUNDWATER RECHARGE VOLUMES
(Table A-1c)

POND AREA
(sq. ft.)

RECHARGE
VOLUME
(cu. ft.)

RECHARGE
VOLUME
(ac.- ft.)
DEPTH
(ft.)
A 16331.50 34908.03 0.80 3.0
B 76932.04 126516.06 2.90 2.0
C 19012.55 25570.35 0.59 2.0
D 79252.73 93876.30 2.16 2.0
TOTAL 191528.82 280870.74 6.45

POST-DEVELOPED RECHARGE VOLUME:

The proposed development will have four sub-areas used for storm water recharge volume (See Exhibits C & D). Pond D will remain in its current condition with a volume of 93,876.30 cubic feet (2.16 acre-feet) of dead storage for groundwater recharge. The bottom of Pond C will be modified, graded, and lowered 7 feet with a new recharge volume of 88,025.40 cubic feet (2.02 acre-feet). The bottom of Pond B will be lowered 7 feet with a new recharge volume of 211,732.65 cubic feet (4.86 acre-feet). The development will also have an onsite water quality bmp system which will have a total recharge volume of 28,809 cubic feet (0.66 acre-feet). The following table (Table A-1d) is a summary of the area and volume of storm water recharge for the post-developed conditions. The total recharge volume will be 422,443.35 cubic feet (9.70 acre-feet).

SUMMARY OF POST-DEVELOPED GROUNDWATER RECHARGE VOLUMES
(Table A-1d)

POND AREA
(sq. ft.)

RECHARGE
VOLUME
(cu. ft.)

RECHARGE
VOLUME
(ac.- ft.)
DEPTH
(ft.)
MODIFIED B 45711.12 211732.65 4.86 7.0
MODIFIED C 18332.64 88025.40 2.02 8.0
D 79252.73 93876.30 2.16 2.0
WQMP
ON-SITE 28809.00 0.66
TOTAL 143296.48 422443.35 9.70

UPLAND HILLS GOLF COURSE

PROPOSED
TRACT 20245
15TH STREET GR
O
V
E
AV
E
.

J.

N
.

6 5
2 -
2 8
9 8
;

R
E
C
H
A
R
G
E

E
X
H
I
B
I
T

POND C
19,012.55 SF
25,570.35 CU.FT.

0.59 AC.-FT.
1417
1418
1417 1418
1416
POND D
79,252.73 SF
93,876.30 CU.FT.

2.16 AC.-FT.
1418
1418
1417
1417
1416
1417
1416
1416 1417
1415
1415
1415
1415
1415
1415
POND B
76,932.04 SF
126,516.06 CU.FT.

2.90 AC.-FT.

POND A
16,331.5 SF
34,908.03 CU.FT.

0.80 AC.-FT.
1414
1415 1416
1417
1415
141
6 1417
J.

N
.

6 5
2 -
2 8
9 8
;

R
E
C
H
A
R
G
E

E
X
H
I
B
I
T

ONSITE WQMP

BMP SYSTEM

POND B POND C POND D

UPLAND HILLS GOLF COURSEPROPOSED
TRACT 20245
15TH STREET GR
O
V
E

A
V
E
.

J.

N
.

6 5
2 -
2 8
9 8
;

R
E
C
H
A
R
G
E

E
X
H
I
B
I
T

POND D
79,242.73 SF
93,876.30 CU.FT.

2.16 AC.-FT.
1418 1417
1416
POND C
18,332.64 SF
88,025.40 CU.FT.

2.02 AC. - FT.

POND B
45,711.12 SF
211,732.65 CU.FT.

4.86 AC. - FT.
1412 1411 1410
1405
1405
1410 1411 1412
1418 1417 14161415
1410
J.

N
.

6 5
2 -
2 8
9 8
;

R
E
C
H
A
R
G
E

E
X
H
I
B
I
T

WQMP BMP SYSTEM
28,809 CU.FT.

0.66 AC. - FT.

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 F

NOISE 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

14896-06 Noise Memo
October 1, 2024

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786

SUBJECT: VILLA SERENA NOISE ASSESSMENT
Dear Mr. Robert D. Dalquest:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Noise Assessment for the Villa Serena Project (“Project”), which is located on the north side of 15th Street in in the City of Upland, as shown on Exhibit A. This Noise Assessment evaluates potential Project noise impacts in the context of applicable City of Upland noise standards and significance criteria based on guidance provided by Section XIII (a) of the Environmental Checklist Form Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (1) In addition, this noise assessment has been revised in response May 8, 2023, City of Upland incomplete notice.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Noise Assessment shows that the land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic for existing conditions. The Villa Serena Project is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise (stationary source) levels beyond the typical noise sources associated with the planned residential land use. This includes residents moving around the site, parking activities, ai r conditioning units and background outdoor activities. Residential land use is generally considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use. Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include residential air conditioning units and other background outdoor activity , the operational noise levels associated with Villa Serena Project will satisfy the City of Upland 55 dBA Leq daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. In addition, the Project -related operational noise level increases over the ambient noise conditions will satisfy the operational noise level increase criteria at the nearest sensitive receiver locations and the potential impact will be less than significant.

The noise analysis shows that Project construction activities will not exceed the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold. However, it is expected that the Project-related construction noise activities will generate a potentially significant temporary noise level increase. Therefore, a minimum 8 to 12-foot-high temporary noise barrier is required adjacent to the existing noise sensitive residences.

With the required 8 to 12-foot-high temporary noise barrier and the construction noise mitigation measures outlined in this noise assessment, the construction noise impacts are considered less than significant.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit B. The proposed Project includes the development of 66 single family residential dwelling units , the 15th Street extension and the basin trail. The Villa Serena is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise (stationary source) levels beyond the typical noise sources associated with the planned residential land use. This includes residents moving around the site, parking activities, air condit ioning units and background outdoor activities. Residential land use is generally considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
On July 20, 2018, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared the Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis (NIA). The NIA evaluated the on-site traffic noise level impacts to future residents of the Project and assessed the potential off-site construction noise and vibration impacts to the adjacent existing residential community. The purpose of this work effort is to assess the potential the Project related traffic noise level increases and the operational noise levels increases associated with the planned residential l and use in response to the Superior Court ruling included in Appendix A. According to the ruling from Judge David Cohn, the NIA did not evaluate the impacts of the Project compared to the Ambient Noise Level.

The analysis provided in this Noise Assessment was prepared to evaluate the incremental noise level increases or impacts of the Project in comparison to the existing ambient noise levels.

NOISE DESCRIPTORS
According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, the proper noise descriptor to use in any given situation depends on the nature of the noise source. For example, a high amplitude short duration event such as gunshot requires a different descriptor than a constant relatively low amplitude noise source such as traffic. The proper descriptor depends on the spatial distribution of noise sources, duration of the noise event, amount of fluctuation, and time patterns.

Dozens of descriptors and scales have been devised over the years to quantify community noise, aircraft flyovers, traffic noise, industrial noise, speech interference, etc. (2) Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment. The City of Upland relies on the equivalent level (Leq) to assess operational activities associated with non-transportation transportation related stationary noise sources.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment.

Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
EXHIBIT A: LOCATION MAP

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAN

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA L eq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Upland relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Environmental Checklist Form XIII (a) Noise Guidelines at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (3) The City of Upland General Plan Safety Element Table SAF-4 Exterior Incremental Noise Impact Standards for Noise Sensitive Use outlines the allowable noise exposure increases that are derived from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. To describe the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable, the FTA criteria is used to evaluate the incremental noise level increase and establishes a method for comparing future project noise with existing ambient conditions under CEQA Significance Threshold A. In effect, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced based on existing ambient noise conditions. Table 1 presents the allowable noise exposure increase levels.

TABLE 1: ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS
Analysis Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic1
If ambient is 75 dBA CNEL 0 dBA CNEL Project increase 1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, consistent with the City of Upland General Plan.

Consistent with the City of Upland General Plan Safety Element, the 24-hour CNEL level is used to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. This is consistent with

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
the Noise Compatible Land Use Planning guidance provided by Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines from the State of California General Plan Guidelines. (4)

FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (5) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (6) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" o r "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (7) Table 2 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off-site transportation noise impacts. The ADT volumes used in this study are presented on Table 3 are based on the Villa Serena Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (8) TABLE 2: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment Receiving
Land Use1 Classification2
Centerline
Distance to
Receiving Land
Use
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)3
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. Sensitive Secondary 44' 40
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. Sensitive Secondary 44' 40
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. Sensitive Secondary 44' 40
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. Sensitive Secondary 44' 40
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive Secondary 44' 45
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive Secondary 44' 45
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive Collector 33' 35
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive Collector 33' 25
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. Sensitive Collector 33' 25
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive Collector 33' 35
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 City of Upland General Plan Circulation Element
3 Upland Colonies Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. In addition, the off-site traffic noise analysis maintains a

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
peak hour to average daily traffic (peak-to-daily) relationship of 7.9%. This analysis relies on a comparative analysis of the off-site traffic noise impacts, without and with project ADT traffic volumes from the Project traffic study. Table 4 provides the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits and Table 5 presents the traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA noise prediction model.

TABLE 3: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing OYC
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. 20,900 21,084 22,885 23,069
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. 20,354 20,630 22,946 23,222
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. 19,427 19,733 22,284 22,590
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. 16,608 16,730 19,613 19,735
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. 22,614 22,644 24,318 24,348
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. 23,465 23,527 25,221 25,283
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. 2,870 2,900 3,365 3,395
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. 100 609 105 614
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. 127 219 135 227
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. 3,581 3,673 4,120 4,212
1 Upland Colonies Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

TABLE 4: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type
Time of Day Splits Total of Time of
Day Splits Daytime Evening Nighttime
Autos 77.50% 12.90% 9.60% 100.00%
Medium Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30% 100.00%
Heavy Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 100.00%
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

TABLE 5: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX)
Roadway
Classification
Total % Traffic Flow
Total
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
All Roadways 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
Typical California Vehicle Mix.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed Project, noise contours were developed for each traffic scenario described in the Villa Serena Traffic Study. (8) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area. Tables 6 through 9 present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise level, for existing, and opening year cumulative conditions without and with Project conditions. Appendix A includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contour for each of the traffic scenarios.

TABLE 6: EXISTING CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. Sensitive 69.8 RW 92 198
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. Sensitive 69.7 RW 90 194
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. Sensitive 69.5 RW 87 188
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. Sensitive 68.8 RW 79 170
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.4 RW 118 253
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.6 RW 121 260
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 61.1 RW RW RW
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 43.1 RW RW RW
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. Sensitive 44.1 RW RW RW
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 62.1 RW RW RW
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
TABLE 7: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. Sensitive 69.8 RW 92 199
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. Sensitive 69.7 RW 91 196
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. Sensitive 69.5 RW 88 190
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. Sensitive 68.8 RW 79 171
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.4 RW 118 254
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.6 RW 121 260
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 61.2 RW RW RW
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 50.9 RW RW RW
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. Sensitive 46.5 RW RW RW
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 62.2 RW RW RW
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 8: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE CONTOURS
ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. Sensitive 70.2 RW 98 210
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. Sensitive 70.2 RW 98 210
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. Sensitive 70.1 RW 96 206
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. Sensitive 69.5 RW 88 190
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.7 RW 123 266
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.9 59 126 272
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 61.8 RW RW RW
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 43.3 RW RW RW
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. Sensitive 44.4 RW RW RW
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 62.7 RW RW RW
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
TABLE 9: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. Sensitive 70.2 RW 98 211
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. Sensitive 70.2 RW 98 212
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. Sensitive 70.1 RW 97 208
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. Sensitive 69.5 RW 88 190
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.7 RW 124 266
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.9 59 127 273
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 61.8 RW RW RW
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 51.0 RW RW RW
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. Sensitive 46.6 RW RW RW
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 62.8 RW RW RW
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report for informational purposes and to fully analyze the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Villa Serena Traffic Study. (8) However, the analysis of existing off-site traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project scenario will not actually occur since the Project would not be fully constructed and operational until future conditions when the Project is built and fully occupied. Table 6 shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing without Project exterior noise levels range from 43.1 to 71.6 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7 shows the Existing with Project conditions range from 46.5 to 71.6 dBA CNEL. Table 10 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 7.8 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic for existing conditions.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
TABLE 10: EXISTING PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit3 Exceeded4
1 Campus Av. n/o 16th St. Sensitive 69.8 69.8 0.0 1 No
2 Campus Av. s/o 16th St. Sensitive 69.7 69.7 0.0 1 No
3 Campus Av. n/o 14th St. Sensitive 69.5 69.5 0.0 1 No
4 Campus Av. s/o 14th St. Sensitive 68.8 68.8 0.0 1 No
5 16th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.4 71.4 0.0 1 No
6 16th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 71.6 71.6 0.0 1 No
7 15th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 61.1 61.2 0.1 2 No
8 15th St. e/o Campus Av. Sensitive 43.1 50.9 7.8 8 No
9 15th St. w/o Grove Av. Sensitive 44.1 46.5 2.4 8 No
10 14th St. w/o Campus Av. Sensitive 62.1 62.2 0.1 2 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 City of Upland General Plan Table SAF-4.
4 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Table 8 presents the Opening Year Cumulative without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year Cumulative without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 43.3 to 71.9 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography.

Table 9 shows the Opening Year Cumulative with Project conditions will range from 46.6 to 71.9 dBA CNEL. Table 11 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 7.7 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic for Opening Year Cumulative conditions

EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit C provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Tuesday, August 31, 2021. Appendix B includes study area photos.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
EXHIBIT C: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL.

The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form.

The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements.

All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (9)

NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site.

These measurement locations were collected at locations that are intended to best describe the existing ambient noise levels within the noise sensitive receiver locations near the Project. In addition, due to the long-term nature of these measurements, the noise level meters are placed in locations where the meter can be securely positioned to avoid any interference. Measurement locations L1 and L2 were selected to describe the noise sensitive residential homes within the Upland Hills Country Club.

Measurement locations, L3, L4 and L5 were selected to descr ibe the existing residential community south of the Project Site on 15th Street.

Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources . (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (10) Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (10) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level imp acts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 12 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. The daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise le vels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix C provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.

Table 12 shows that the existing ambient noise level at measurements locations L1 to L5 are consistent with the quiet nature of the surrounding residential community. While there is some variation in the individual noise levels at each location, the noise levels on Table 12 represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number.

TABLE 12: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located north of the Project site near single-family residence at 1168 Upland Hills Drive South. 47.2 42.5
L2 Located east of the Project site near single-family
residence at 8269 Calle Del Prado. 43.6 39.3
L3 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 1335 East 15th Street. 47.2 40.6
L4 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 1497 Fernando Avenue. 45.7 41.0
L5 Located west of the Project site near single-family
residence at 1520 North Himalayas Circle. 42.6 38.5
1 See Exhibit C for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix C. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational noise impacts, the following receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit D, were identified as representative locations for focused analysis. This includes additional receiver locations adjacent to the 15th Street extension and the basin trail. While the existing noise level measurement locations are used to describe the existing background ambient noise conditions in the Project study area, the receiver locations are used to calculate the Project operational noise levels at potentially impact nearby noise sensitive residences. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas.

Noise-sensitive receivers near the Project site include the existing residential homes located to the west of the Project site on Himalayas Circle, south on 15th Street and north on Upland Hills Drive. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures.

NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program.

CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.

Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver an d the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuati on factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix D includes the detailed noise model inputs.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
EXHIBIT D: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations resulting from the operation of the proposed Villa Serena Project. This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the typical activities expected at the Project site. The on-site Project-related noise sources shown on Exhibit E are expected to include residential air conditioning units and other background outdoor activity. This noise source activity is representative of the planned residential land use that is not expected to produce any type of peak or single event noise source activities.

To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference sound power levels (Lw) were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. While sound pressure levels (e.g. Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The reference Project operational sound power noise levels are summarized below:
• A/C Condenser Units: 73 dBA Lw according to the reference product data sheet for the Bryant 124ANS Series 5-Ton Air Conditioner Unit.
• Background Outdoor Activity: 75 dBA Lw based on reference outdoor noise level measurements collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc.

PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Villa Serena Project, stationary-source (operational) noise such as the expected residential air conditioning units and other background outdoor activity are typically evaluated against standards established under a jurisdiction’s Municipal Code. The City of Upland noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating non-transportation or stationary noise source impacts from operations in neighboring residential areas are found in Chapter 9.40 of the Municipal Code, provided in Appendix D.

The performance standards found in Chapter 9.40 limit the base exterior noise level to 55 dBA Leq during the daytime hours from 7:00 am to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. at sensitive residential receiver locations. (11)

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
EXHIBIT E: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include residential air conditioning units and other background outdoor activity, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project - related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 13 shows that the daytime Project operational noise at the off-site receiver locations with the planned 6-foot-high wall is expected to range from 30.9 to 51.3 dBA Leq. It is important to recognize that the operational noise analysis includes all sixty-six air conditioning units and outdoor activities all operating at the same time without accounting for any of the planned residential building structures. In real world operating conditions, the air conditioning units will cycle on and off throughout the day and night.

Therefore, the noise levels presented below conservatively overstate the Project operational noise levels.

TABLE 13: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 43.8 34.1 55 45 No No
R2 50.0 35.3 55 45 No No
R3 30.9 19.6 55 45 No No
R4 35.9 20.6 55 45 No No
R5 44.6 33.6 55 45 No No
R6 51.3 36.2 55 45 No No
R7 46.7 33.6 55 45 No No
R8 43.3 30.0 55 45 No No
R9 32.9 21.6 55 45 No No
R10 45.2 31.4 55 45 No No
1 See Exhibit D for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project unmitigated operational noise level calculations are included in Appendix E. 3 City of Upland Municipal Code Chapter 9.40. (Appendix D). 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Upland exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 13 shows the operational noise levels associated with Villa Serena Project will not exceed the City of Upland 55 dBA Leq daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact (3). This approach recognizes that there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction, primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an effective way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted — the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combin ed with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Table 14, the Project will generate a daytime operational noise level increase ranging from 0.2 to 5.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Table 15 shows that the Project will generate a nighttime operational noise level increase ranging from 0.0 to 1.3 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. To describe the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered substantial (Threshold A), the City of Upland General Plan outlines criteria (Table SAF-4) to evaluate the incremental noise level increase and establishes a method for comparing future project noise with existing ambient conditions under CEQA Significance Noise Threshold A. Based on the significanc e criteria presented in Table 1, the Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase criteria at the nearest sensitive receiver locations and the impact will be less than significant.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
TABLE 14: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 43.8 L1 47.2 48.8 1.6 8 No
R2 50.0 L1 47.2 51.8 4.6 8 No
R3 30.9 L2 43.6 43.8 0.2 8 No
R4 35.9 L2 43.6 44.3 0.7 8 No
R5 44.6 L3 47.2 49.1 1.9 8 No
R6 51.3 L3 47.2 52.7 5.5 8 No
R7 46.7 L3 47.2 50.0 2.8 8 No
R8 43.3 L4 45.7 47.7 2.0 8 No
R9 32.9 L5 42.6 43.0 0.4 8 No
R10 45.2 L5 42.6 47.1 4.5 8 No
1 See Exhibit D for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 16. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit C. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 15. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 City of Upland General Plan Table SAF-4.

TABLE 15: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 34.1 L1 42.5 43.1 0.6 8 No
R2 35.3 L1 42.5 43.3 0.8 8 No
R3 19.6 L2 39.3 39.3 0.0 8 No
R4 20.6 L2 39.3 39.4 0.1 8 No
R5 33.6 L3 40.6 41.4 0.8 8 No
R6 36.2 L3 40.6 41.9 1.3 8 No
R7 33.6 L3 40.6 41.4 0.8 8 No
R8 30.0 L4 41.0 41.3 0.3 8 No
R9 21.6 L5 38.5 38.6 0.1 8 No
R10 31.4 L5 38.5 39.3 0.8 8 No
1 See Exhibit D for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 16. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit C. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 15. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 City of Upland General Plan Table SAF-4.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise vary depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (12) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (12) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit F. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (13) An increase of 10 dBA is considered twice as loud.

The operational noise level increase analysis shows that the nearest noise sensitive residential receivers will potentially experience a background ambient noise level increases are considered barely or readily perceptible. This finding is conservatively based on all sixty-six air conditioning units and outdoor activities all operating at the same time without accounting for any building structures or planned perimeter walls.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City of Upland has established limits to the hours of operation. Section 9.40.100[M] of the City’s Municipal Code states:

It is unlawful for any person to engage in or permit the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays… (14) However, neither the City of Upland General Plan Noise Element nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below. According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisan ce and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use (10 p. 179).

CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
equipment reference noise emission levels. (15) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment.

In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, the loudest construction equipment represented by the combined noise levels for graders, excavators and compactors represent a sound power level of 115 Lw, assuming they operate at the same time. Appendix G includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations shown on Exhibit F, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. Table 16 shows that the construction noise levels are expected to range from 50.7 to 63.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations and will not exceed the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 16: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 55.0 80 No
R2 56.6 80 No
R3 50.7 80 No
R4 53.6 80 No
R5 61.6 80 No
R6 63.6 80 No
R7 56.8 80 No
R8 59.2 80 No
R9 55.9 80 No
R10 60.5 80 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit F. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations.
3 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
EXHIBIT F: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASE
To control the noise-generating construction activities, the temporary noise level increases over the existing ambient conditions must be considered under CEQA Significance Threshold A. In California a substantial noise increase occurs when the project’s predicted noise level exceeds the existing ambient noise level by 12 dBA or more. (16) The use of 12 dB was established in California many years ago and is based on the concept that a 10 dB increase generally is perceived as a doubling of loudness. (2 pp. 3-2) Therefore, if the Project-related construction noise levels generate a temporary noise level increase above the existing ambient noise levels of up to 12 dBA Leq, then the Project construction noise level increases will be considered a potentially significant impact.

To describe the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations. The difference between the combined Project-construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when Project construction -source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented on Table 17. As indicated in Table 17, the Project will contribute unmitigated construction noise level increases ranging from 7.9 to 18.0 dBA Leq during the daytime hours at the closest receiver locations. The unmitigated construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will exceed the Caltrans substantial 12 dBA Leq noise level increase significance threshold during Project construction activities. The temporary construction noise level increase analysis shows that the noise impacts due to Project -related construction noise are considered potentially significant without mitigation.

Therefore, a minimum 8 to 12-foot-high temporary noise barrier is required adjacent to the existing noise sensitive residences as shown on Exhibit G. Table 18 shows that the mitigated construction noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations are expected to range from 50.7 to 58.1 dBA Leq. Appendix H includes the mitigated construction CadnaA noise calculations. The mitigated construction noise levels will range from 7.9 to 11.2 dBA Leq and will not exceed the Caltrans substantial 12 dBA Leq noise level increase significance threshold. With the required 8 to 12-foot-high temporary noise barrier and the construction noise mitigation measures outlined below, the construction noise impacts are considered less than significant.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
3 TABLE 17: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Receiver
Location1
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 55.0 L1 47.2 55.7 8.5 12 No
R2 56.6 L1 47.2 57.1 9.9 12 No
R3 50.7 L2 43.6 51.5 7.9 12 No
R4 53.6 L2 43.6 54.0 10.4 12 No
R5 61.6 L3 47.2 61.8 14.6 12 Yes
R6 63.6 L3 47.2 63.7 16.5 12 Yes
R7 56.8 L3 47.2 57.3 10.1 12 No
R8 59.2 L4 45.7 59.4 13.7 12 Yes
R9 55.9 L5 42.6 56.1 13.5 12 Yes
R10 60.5 L5 42.6 60.6 18.0 12 Yes
1 See Exhibit F for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 16. 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit C. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 12. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project construction activities. 7 Caltrans substantial noise level increase criteria.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
4 EXHIBIT G: CONSTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
5 TABLE 18: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 55.0 L1 47.2 55.7 8.5 12 No
R2 56.6 L1 47.2 57.1 9.9 12 No
R3 50.7 L2 43.6 51.5 7.9 12 No
R4 53.6 L2 43.6 54.0 10.4 12 No
R5 55.3 L3 47.2 55.9 8.7 12 No
R6 58.1 L3 47.2 58.4 11.2 12 No
R7 56.8 L3 47.2 57.3 10.1 12 No
R8 56.6 L4 45.7 56.9 11.2 12 No
R9 53.3 L5 42.6 53.7 11.1 12 No
R10 52.2 L5 42.6 52.7 10.1 12 No
1 See Exhibit F for the receiver locations.
2 Mitigated Project construction noise level calculations are included in H. 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit C. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 12. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project construction activities. 7 Caltrans substantial noise level increase criteria.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce noise levels produced by the construction equipment.

MM-1 Install a minimum 8 to 12-foot-high temporary construction noise barrier as shown on Exhibit G.

The noise control barriers must have a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barriers must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows:
o The temporary noise barriers shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. o The noise barrier must be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired.
o The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity.

MM-2 All construction activities shall comply with City of Upland Section 9.40.100[M] limiting construction activity to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

MM-3 Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

MM-4 All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receivers.

MM-5 Construction equipment staging areas shall be located at the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receivers.

MM-6 The construction contractor shall limit equipment and material deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment for MM-2.

MM-7 Electrically powered air compressors and similar power tools shall be used, when feasible, in place of diesel equipment.

MM-8 No music or electronically reinforced speech from construction workers shall be allowed.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. (10) Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (10) Occasionally large bulldozers and loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity.

To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the Villa Serena, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Upland does not identify specific vibration level limits and instead relies on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology (10) consistent with the City of Upland General Plan Final Program EIR. (17) The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology provides guidelines for the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines allow 90 VdB for industrial (workshop) use, 84 VdB for office use and 78 VdB for daytime residential uses and 72 VdB for nighttime uses in buildings where people normally sleep. (10)

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (10). However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used.

Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 19. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for typical construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: L VdB(D) = LVdB(25 ft) – 30log(D/25)
TABLE 19: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Vibration Decibels (VdB)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
Large bulldozer 87
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo
Table 20 presents the expected typical construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 12 feet to 187 feet from typical Project construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 60.8 to 96.6 VdB and will exceed the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses at receivers located within 50 feet of the Pro ject site boundary. The vibration analysis shows that the Project-related construction vibration impacts will be potentially significant during the typical construction activities at the Project site and mitigation is required.

TABLE 20: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)
Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)2
Threshold
VdB3
Threshold
Exceeded?4 Small
Bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Levels
R1 187' 31.8 52.8 59.8 60.8 60.8 78 No
R2 144' 35.2 56.2 63.2 64.2 64.2 78 No
R3 179' 32.4 53.4 60.4 61.4 61.4 78 No
R4 51' 48.7 69.7 76.7 77.7 77.7 78 No
R5 27' 57.0 78.0 85.0 86.0 86.0 78 Yes
R6 17' 63.0 84.0 91.0 92.0 92.0 78 Yes
R7 59' 46.8 67.8 74.8 75.8 75.8 78 No
R8 28' 56.5 77.5 84.5 85.5 85.5 78 Yes
R9 29' 56.1 77.1 84.1 85.1 85.1 78 Yes
R10 12' 67.6 88.6 95.6 96.6 96.6 78 Yes
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit B.
2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 4. 3 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment maximum acceptable vibration criteria. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? Therefore, a 50-foot buffer setback mitigation measure is required which would restrict the use of large, loaded trucks, and heavy mobile equipment greater than 80,000 pounds, within 50-feet of occupied sensitive receiver locations represented by receiver locations R5, R6, R8, R9 and R10. Instead, small rubber-tired or alternative equipment, as well as soil compaction equipment shall be used during Project construction to reduce vibration effects on nearby structures and their occupants. Table 20 shows that with the 50-foot setback buffer, Project construction vibration levels will not exceed the 78 VdB construction vibration threshold for daytime residential uses. Therefore, the Project -related construction vibration impacts are considered less than significant with a 50-foot buffer setback mitigation measure during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

CONCLUSIONS
This Noise Assessment demonstrates that the noise and vibration levels associated with Villa Serena Project will satisfy the noise standards outlined in the City of Upland Plan and the significance criteria provided by Section XIII (a) of the CEAQ Environmental Checklist Form Appendix G. (1) Therefore, the Project-related noise and vibration impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148.

Respectfully submitted,

URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal

Mr. Robert D. Dalquest
City of Upland
October 1, 2024

14896-06 Noise Memo

REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form. 2019.

2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

3. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

4. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines. 2017.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.

6. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.

7. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.

8. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis. October 2022.

9. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

11. City of Fontana. Zoning and Development Code, Section 30, Article V - Residential Zoning Districts, Division 6 - Performance Standards.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

13. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

14. City of Upland. Municipal Code, Chapter 9.40 - Unnecessary Noise.

15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006.

16. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. April 2020.

17. City of Upland. General Plan Final Program EIR. September 2015.

14896-05 Noise Memo
This page intentionally left blank

14896-05 Noise Memo

APPENDIX A

SUPERIOR COURT RULING

14896-05 Noise Memo
This page intentionally left blank

1 2
3 I
7 E
9 10
11 12
13 16
17 r8
19 2A
u
23 2a
26 27
Superior Court of California
County ol San Bornardino
247 West Third Street, Dept. S26
San Bernardino, California 92415
Defendants and
Real Parties in lnterest
sEP I 3 ?02'
PV

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNW OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT

FRIENDS OF UPLAND WETIANDS,
Petitioner,
'ffi"ffi-hfom*
Case No.: CIVDS-2o10521
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER:

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANOATE

GRANTEO IN PART
Hearing Date: July 14,2021
Dept: 5-26. Judge tlavid Cohn
CITY OF UPLAND; ANO OOES 11
through 100,
Respondent.

FH ll, LLC; and DOES 101 through 1,000
.1-

1 2
3 5
6 ?
I
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 16
18 20
21 22
21 2A
27 28
Safl Dlego (2019)43 Cal.App.sth 404,418, quoting Eerach y. County of Los Ang€,les (2007) 149 Cal,App.4th 836, 852.) "lssues do not have a tife of thet own: if they are not raised or suppo(ed by argument or citation to aulhority, w€ consider the issues waived." (Jones v. Supedor Cour, (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 96, cited in Holden v. CW of San Diego, sup,"e, al p.418; see a/so, Cal. Rules of Cou(, rule 3.1113(a) lprovides for waiver of all grounds not supported in the points and authodties accompanying a motion or opposition to a motionl.)
FUWs failure to specify the reasons why the IS/MND is inadequate on this issue is fatal to this argumenl.

F. The IS/MND Falled to Anelyze the Nobe lmpacts of the Projsct Compared to the Amblent Noise Level, but Considered Only the Maximum Nobs Thrsshold.

FUW contends the lS/MND improperly relied on Upland's 'exterior noise standard'and a federal vibration standard as thresholds ofsignificance in analyzing the potentially signilicant noise impacts of the project. FUW'S argument is unsupported.

The CEOA Guidelines derlne the "threshold of significanc€" as "an identmable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level oi a particular environm€ntal efiect, non- compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be signilicant by the agency and compliance with which means the effeci normally will be determined to be less than significant.' (Guidelines, S 15064.7, subd. (a).) ''The lead agency has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of signmcance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact.' loitation.]" (Je,sen, supra, 23 Cal.App.Sth at p.885.)

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 8
9 10
11 12
13 11
15 15
17 18
19 20
21 24
25 20
27 28
Regarding noise impacts, the environmental checklist form in the Guidelines includes a series of questions lo frame the analysis. (Sae, Guidelines Appendix G:

Environmental Checklist Form, Xlll, Noise.) The key question is whether the proieot will generate "a subslantial temporary or permanenl increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standard established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standard of other agencies." (Guidelines Appendix c:

Environmental Checklist Form, Xlll, Noise.)
Th6 lS/MND identifies Upland l\runicipalCode Chapt€r 9.40, Unnecessary Noise, and Upland's General Plan Policies SAF-1.1 and SAF-1.3 as the basis for the thresholds of signilicance used in analyzing noise impacts of the project. (See, AR 156- 159, 1384-1458.) Mbration level standards are not identified in the Upland General Plan or Municipal Code. As a result, the IS/MND adopted the U.S. Department ol Transportation Federal Transit Administration ("FTA') guidelines tor maximum. acceptable vibration criteria for different land uses. (AR 1411.) The public agency's decision in choosing the threshold is presumed correct, and a petitioner bears the burden of proving that the threshold selected is legally inadequate. FUW does not suggest any allernatives to lhe thresholds of significance used by Upland and FH, nor do they point to any evidence in the record demonstrating that the selected thresholds are inadequate. Therefore, FUW has not met its burden of demonslraling the selected thresholds are legally inadequate.

Nonetheless, Guidelines section 15004, subdivision (bX2), provides:

When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance wilh the threshold means that the project'g impacts are less than significant. Compliance with lhe
threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to 43-
/

1 2
3 5
6 7
6 I
10 11
12 13
11 16
17 18
l9
20 21
22 21
28 27
28 FUW argues that Upland failed to €xercBe 'careful judgment' in analyzing the noise impacts. FUW contends the lS/MND failed lo analyze the qualilativE increase in existing ambient noise levels, and did not consirer that 'an aclivity which may not be significant in an urban area may be signmcant in a rural area," (Guid€lines, S 15064, subd. (b).) According to FUW,lhe noise analysis should have started with the existing noise situation as the 'baseline," not with Upland's noise standard as the 'ceiling." Lead agencies often use the CEQA ch€cklist in conjunction with an analysis using quantitativ€ limits on maximum allowed noise levels and on increases in the level of noise !o determine whether noise impacts are significant. (Kng & Gadiner Fams, LLC v. County of Kem (2020) 45 Cal.App.Sth E14, 883i sea a/so, Jensen, supn,23 Cal.App.Sth 877 lnegative declaration casel.) Nevertheless, "[t]he noise questions in the checklist do not define \r,hat maximum level of noise, or increase in the level of nois€, cqnstitutes a significant impact.'(2 Kostka & Zschke, supra, S 13.64A, citing to King & Gadiner Fams, supra 45 Cal.App.sth at p. 884.)
Upland and FH contend that since they used the relevant provisions ofthe General Plan and Upland Municipal Code as lhe thresholds of signilicance, the nois€ impacts analysis is proper. But lead agencies do not have discretion to consider only maximum noise levels and ignore any increases in noise levels relative to existing conditions in the projecl a,ea. (King & Gadiner Farms, supra,45 Cal.App-sth at p. 887, guoling Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clan (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732-733 lnegalive declaration case holding that increase in noise level must be considered, notjust absolute noise levell.) Here, there is substantial evidence consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effect may still be significant.

!
2 3
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 10
17 18
19 20
21 22
21 25
27 2A
supporting a faf argument that Upland considered only the maximum lhreshold and did not qualitatively analyze the noise impacts.
ln Upland's GeneralPlan, Policy SAF-1.1 provides the "Exterior Noise Slandards" and stales: 'For a single-family r€sidential land us6 such as the Project, the nomary acceptablB eierior noise level standard is 80 A-weighted decibels (dBA) CNEL [Community Noise Equivalent Level],'Q7 (AR 1409, 159.) Policy SAFI.3 sets forth the "lnterior Noise Standards" and "identifies an interior noise level standard of45 dBA CNEL for new r$identialdevelopmentB." (AR 1409.)
ln ths technical analysis (App€ndix 'H' to the lS/MND), the s€c,tjon discussing th€ construction noise standards slat€s that section 9.40.040 of the UMC "idenffies th6 maximum allowable noise levels al residential us€ based on the 55 dBA bas6 arnbiert noise revel standard plus 20 dBA, which equates to a 75 dBA Lmu noise level standard.',! (AR 1410.) This assertion that the maximum allowable nois€ lov€l is 75 dgA L."r is misleading. The maximum exterior rssidential noise lavel above the base ambient noise level is sel forth in UMC seciion 9.40.070, and it providas maximum duralion p6riods lor noise levels exceeding the base ambient nois€ level. The code section stat€s that a noise lsvel of 20 dBA above base ambient level is not permitted at 2r Policy SAF-I . f idenlf€s the tran6po.talion-Gletod o(sdor .ois€ aDmpelibillty standad3 ior difloranl |rnd u$E in T.ble SAF- 1 . .. ." IAR 1409.1 Th. IS/MND lrat€s rhsr 1llhe Communrry Noa3. Equv.rrnt Levd {CNEL) u3.6 woigilod av.ra063 ol th6 intensily of a 3ound, with comctions for lim€ ol dry, lo roprd.nt a compo.il. 2+ho!r noi!6 l.v€|. (Uplandl ua.! CNEL lo r€p.€.€nl lh.t .tt rior ..d int rior noi!. 3iandard.." [aR 159.] '!r UMC a.cllon! 9.40 O/tO provid€t, -Allambi€nl noire m.asuEm.nt! lhall.ommsnc. allhs ba.€.mbicnt leveb in de.ibel8 wilhin ths resp€cUva llm6s and zon6s as follors,' and lh€n e5lablj3hos lhe base ambienl nobo lev€l for r6$.hntial land ulet of 55 dBA dunng tno hou6 ol 7:00 a.m. lo 10:00 p.m. IAR 14,r2.t The cod. seclion go€a on lo stata, 'Actual dccibel moaBuromonla cxcoedin9 lho abova teval! al lhe lim$ and whhin tho :on€6 conBponding lharclo rh6ll b€ omployed g3 th6 b3!€ Embient nois6 l6vsl refored lo ln lhis ai6pter, Olhorwiaa, no ambi.nt nobc.hatl b€ d6crh6d to b. Lrt than ln. sbov. .p.rrfi.d l.voh.' IAR 14r2.I -45-

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
'19
20 23
24 25
2A
27 28
all, and the base ambient noise level is allowed for only thirty minutes per hour.2e (AR 1443.\
The technical analysis ol the noise impacG repeatedly seeks only to 'satisty the City of Upland 60 dBA CNEL extErior noise level standard for residential land use'or "satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard." (AR 1391, 1392, 1419.) There is no discussion of the aclual base ambient ooise level in the argas surrounding the site and the increas€ in that noise level-only a discussion of the predicbd absolule noise levels associated with the project. Therefore, in finding thatthe unmitigated exterior noise levels generated by on-site kansportalion L'rill range from 57.0 to 66.4 dBA CNEL,'the technical analysis only contemplates mitigation that will result in an exterior noise level not in excess oI60 dBA CNEL. (AR 1419.)
Similarly, the technical analysis seems to view the 75 dBA Lmer noise level as the unqualified maximum threshold lo be exc€eded in determining whelher unmitigated project-related construction noise levels are potentially significant. (AR 1392.) The technical analysis states that'the Projecl-related construc'tion nois€ impacts lwerel €valuated based on the maximum allowable noise level for residential uses of 75 dBA Lmq." (AR 1410.) As a result, when the technical analysis determined that the unmitigated construction noise levels were expected to range from 61.3 to 83.3 dBA 1m.,, the formulation ot a mitigation measure was based only on the 83.3 dBA Lnax noise levelsince that levelexceeded the 75 dBA G,"' level- (AR 14301431.) Since the mitigated lemporary construction noise levelwas determined lo range between 64.7 a Th6 noiSe levol of t 5 dBA above baso ambient level i3 allowed only tor ong minul€ p€r hour l0dBAabove bese ambient noi3e l6vel B allovild onty lor fv€ minut6! p€r hour, and 5 dBA abovo bas€ amb 6nt nob€ bv€l i3 alowed for only 15 minul6s per hour.lAR 1{43.1
-4G