Loma Linda City Council
February 14, 2023

LILBURN

C O R P O R A T I O N
Source: Lilburn Corp., March, 2022.

Feet
0 200 PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 2

1.6 MG Water Tank
City of Loma Linda, California

PROJECT LOCATION
Beaumont Ave.

Mountain View Av
e.

Canyon Rd.

LILBURN

C O R P O R A T I O N

SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3

1.6 MG Water Tank
City of Loma Linda, California

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 6
Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the south and east, Hulda Crooks Park and Pressure Zone 2 water tanks are located approximately 1,400 feet to northwest. The nearest residence is approximately 800 feet to the north (north side of Beaumont Avenue). The Loma Linda Large Dog Park and Loma Linda Small Dog Park are located within the western and northern portion, respectively of the Project Site (APN 293-052- 21). Existing land use designation and zoning for the surrounding properties are presented in Table 1 below:

Table 1
Surrounding Land Uses, Designations and Zoning
Location Existing
Land Use
Land Use Designation Zoning
Project
Site
Vacant land
Dog Parks
Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS)
North Residential Low Density Residential (R1) Low Density Residential (R1) South Vacant land Hillside Conservation (HR-C) Hillside Conservation (HR-C) East Vacant land Rural Estates (HR-RE)
Hillside Conservation (HR-C)
Rural Estates (HR-RE)
Hillside Conservation (HR-C)
West Park Open Space (OS)
Hillside Conservation (HR-C)
Open Space (OS)
Hillside Conservation (HR-C)
The Project Site has a General Plan land use designation and zoning of Open Space (OS). Public infrastructure projects are an allowable use within all City General Plan land use designation.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit

11. Related Technical Reports (incorporated by reference): The technical studies/reports referenced herein and listed in the References section at the end of this Initial Study were used to analyze the Project. All reports are available for review at the City of Loma Linda Community Development Department.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 7

12. Evaluation Format: This Initial Study was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The format of the study is presented as follows. The project is evaluated based upon its effect on 21 major categories of environmental factors. Each factor is reviewed by responding to a series of questions regarding the impact of the project on each element of the overall factor. The Initial Study Checklist provides a formatted analysis that provides a determination of the effect of the project on the factor and its elements. The effect of the project is categorized into one of the following four categories of possible determinations:

Potentially Significant
Impact
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant No Impact
Substantiation is then provided to justify each determination. One of the four following conclusions is then provided as a summary of the analysis for each of the major environmental factors.

1. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

2. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

3. Possible significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated and the following mitigation measures are required as a condition of project approval to reduce these impacts to a level below significant. The required mitigation measures are: (List mitigation measures).

4. Significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to evaluate these impacts, which are: (List the impacts requiring analysis within the EIR).

To ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. In accordance with CEQA Section 15097 Mitigation Monitoring or Report, mitigation measures required as part of this Initial Study shall be made a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 8

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Resources
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ) I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date:

Community Development Director
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be crossreferenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 10
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 11

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) () ( ) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point), If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
( ) ( ) () ( )
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a, c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and consists of mostly sloped terrain. The Project Site does not contain any notable geological features and does not occur near a designated State Scenic Highway. Southwest of the Project Site is the Hillside Conservation Area. The area designated as “Hillside Conservation” on the Land Use Element Map is an important conservation area for the City and is characterized by natural, scenic hillsides, rough terrain and limited services constituting the highest ridgelines visible from the City. The proposed 1.6 MG water tank and related improvements are a permitted use within the Open Space District.

As stated in the City of Loma Linda’s Municipal Code, Section 17.44.040 Development Standards, which sets forth standards for development within the Open Space District, no maximum height standards, except as approved by the Conditional Use Permit, exist.
2 The water storage tank will be approximately 35 feet high and approximately 100 feet in diameter, made of welded steel and built on grade within a southside slope in the South Hills. As shown in the detailed cut slope on Figure 3 Site Plan and in Photo 1, the proposed placement of the tank would reduce its visibility from Beaumont Avenue and residences to the north of the Project Site. The 1.6 MG water tank would be constructed on the south slope of a hill with a ridgeline elevation of 1,505 feet. The tank would be constructed within a cut slope at a finished elevation of 1,480 feet, and would extend approximately 10 feet above the ridgeline (1,480 feet plus 35-foot high water tank minus 1,505 foot ridgeline). However, due to topography and placement of the tank, only

2 http://qcode.us/codes/lomalinda/ . Table 2-8.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 12
Photo 1: From a dirt road just north of Canyon Road, looking at the location of the1.6 MG water tank to be placed on the back side of hill.

Photo 2: Looking south from Beaumont Avenue toward the Project Site and the proposed location of the access road.

Location of access road.

Location of water tank is on the south side of a
hill (not visible from Beaumont Avenue).

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 13
a few feet would be visible from Beaumont Avenue. The access road would be visible from Beaumont Avenue. However, since there are existing transmission lines (i.e., Edison corridor) as seen in Photo 2, impacts to the existing visible environment are considered less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not disrupt views of the hillside or any other scenic vista identified by the City.

Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. The Project Site is not within or near a State designated or eligible Scenic Highway as identified by the Department of Transportation’s State Scenic Highway Program. The nearest Scenic Highway is Route 38 that begins approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Project Site. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the 1.6 MG water tank would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The water tank would be painted a neutral color to aid in blending with the surrounding environment and is not anticipated to result in any new glare. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and
the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 14
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Impact Discussion:
a) No Impact. The Project Site occurs in an area identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Interactive Important Farmland Finder as “Grazing Land.” 3 Grazing Land is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.

Grazing Land is not defined as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. The Project Site does not occur within or near land with a Williamson Act contract or agricultural use as shown on the United States Department of Agriculture Interactive Agricultural Resources Map.4 Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. Forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production would not be impacted by the Proposed Project as no rezoning from timberland to a non-timberland designation would result. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. No portion of the Project Site occurs within forest land, and the proposed expansion would not result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to a non-forest use. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. Under the existing City of Loma Linda General Plan, there are no agricultural land use designations, although agriculture is an existing use in some areas

3 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed 2/28/22. 4 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fcb9bc427d2a4c5a981f97547a0e3688. Accessed 2/28/22.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 15
of the City. There are no forest lands within the City. The Proposed Project would not result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
( ) ( ) () ( )
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site occurs within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the SCAB. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to obtain attainment of the State and federal air quality standards. The most recent AQMP (AQMP 2016) was adopted by the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including transportation control measures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The Project Site is a permitted use within the Open Space land use/zoning designation.

Therefore, the emissions associated with the Proposed Project have already been accounted for in the AQMP and approval of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the AQMP.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in construction emissions and negligible operational emissions limited to maintenance vehicle trips. Construction of the proposed Project would require earthmoving, and other activities such as removal of Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 16
vegetation. The Project’s construction activities were screened for emission generation using SCAQMD “Air Quality Handbook” guidelines and Emission Factors for On-Road Heavy-Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks (2022). These tables are used to generate emissions estimates for development projects. The criteria pollutants screened for included:
reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Two of these, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors.

Project construction emissions are considered short-term, temporary emissions and were calculated based on the estimated construction parameters listed below. The resulting emission levels as compared to SCAQMD thresholds are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

Road-Pipeline Installation Typical daily equipment:
 1 Backhoe
 1 Excavator
 2 Other Construction Equipment
 1 Other Material Handling Equipment
 Paver
 Paving Equipment
Water Tank Installation Typical daily equipment:
 1 Dozer
 1 Backhoe
 1 Roller
 1 Crane
 1 Forklift
 2 Other Construction Equipment
Table 2
Road-Pipeline Installation
Construction Emissions
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Backhoe 0.5 3.1 3.5 0.1 0.1
Excavator 0.5 2.5 4.1 0.1 0.1
Other Construction Equipment 0.8 4.5 5.6 0.2 0.2
Other Material Handling Equipment 0.7 4.1 3.5 0.2 0.2
Paver 0.7 3.8 3.9 0.2 0.2
Paving Equipment 0.5 3.3 3.2 0.2 0.2
Totals (lbs/day) 3.7 21.3 21.3 1.0 1.0
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Significant No No No No No
Source: SCAQMD Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions Factors (2022) Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 17
Table 3
Water Tank Installation
Construction Emissions
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Dozer 1.5 10.9 5.9 0.4 0.4
Backhoe 0.5 3.1 3.5 0.1 0.1
Roller 0.4 2.6 3.0 0.1 0.1
Crane 0.6 4.4 3.1 0.2 0.2
Forklift 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Other Construction Equipment (i.e.,
architectural coating)

0.8 4.5 5.6 0.2 0.2
Totals (lbs/day) 4.1 26.4 22.8 1.1 1.1
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Significant No No No No No

Source: SCAQMD Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions Factors (2022) As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, Project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, no adverse significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are warranted.

Although the Proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction activities, the City would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations as the SCAB is in non-attainment status for ozone and suspended particulates (PM10). The Project shall comply with Rules 402 nuisance and 403 fugitive dust that require the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for each fugitive dust source; and the AQMP, which identifies Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) for area sources and point sources, respectively. The BACMs and BACTs as established by the SCAQMD would include, but not be limited to the following:

1. The Project Proponent shall ensure that any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre-watered prior to the onset of grading activities.
(a) The Project Proponent shall ensure that watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly (two times daily) to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface and shall be watered at the end of each workday. (b) The Project Proponent shall ensure that all disturbed areas are treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon.
(c) The Project Proponent shall ensure that landscaped areas are installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion.
(d) The Project Proponent shall ensure that all grading activities are suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 18
Exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by equipment traveling over exposed surfaces would increase NOX and PM10 levels in the area. Although the proposed project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction, the applicant will be required to implement the following conditions as required by SCAQMD:

1. To reduce emissions, all equipment used in earthwork must be tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specification to maximize efficient burning of vehicle fuel.

2. The project proponent shall ensure that construction personnel are informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities.

3. The operator shall maintain and effectively utilize and schedule on-site equipment in order to minimize exhaust emissions from truck idling.

4. The operator shall comply with all existing and future CARB and SCAQMD regulations related to diesel-fueled trucks, which may include among others:
(1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction activities. Although there would be emissions from vehicles and equipment during construction, the emissions would be temporary, of short duration, and below the established thresholds. In addition, Project emissions of particulate matter would be reduced by implementing BACMs as outlined in SCAQMD dust control Rules 402 - Nuisance and 403 - Fugitive Dust. As no measurable operational emissions will be generated, the Proposed Project would not generate long-term emissions of criteria pollutants that would exceed thresholds; therefore operation of the Proposed Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants. A less than significant impact is identified, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Less than Significant Impact. SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the localized impacts of emissions from a Proposed Project as outlined within the Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology report; completed in June 2003 and revised in July 2008. The use of LSTs is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local public agencies acting as a lead agency pursuant to CEQA. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply if the Proposed Project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources (such as heavy-duty trucks) that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site, such as industrial warehouse/transfer facilities. The Proposed Project does not involve any such sources and therefore, no long-term localized significant threshold analysis is warranted. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Less than Significant Impact. Potential odor sources associated with the Proposed Project may result from construction activities including equipment exhaust and painting.

Operational odor would not be significant and would be limited to maintenance vehicles.

Standard construction requirements (i.e., reduced idling, mufflers) would minimize odor impacts resulting from construction activity. It should be noted that any construction odor emissions generated would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 19
would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction activity. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
( ) () ( ) ( )
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Impact Discussion:
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) dated March 11, 2022 was prepared for the Project Site by ELMT Consulting. The BRA included a field investigation conducted on January 6, 2022, to Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 20
document baseline conditions and assess the potential for special-status5 plant and wildlife species to occur within the Project Site that could pose a constraint to implementation of the Proposed Project. Special attention was given to the suitability of the Project Site to support special-status plant and wildlife species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and other electronic databases as potentially occurring in the general vicinity of the Project Site.

Prior to conducting the field investigation, a literature review and records search was conducted for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the Project Site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the Project Site were determined through a query of the CDFW’s QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special-status species published by CDFW, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings.

The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring within the Project Site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and determine the distance from the Project Site.

Common plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less-familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Wildlife species detected during the field investigation by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook.

Findings
The survey area supports two vegetation communities: Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and non-native grassland (NNG). In addition, the site supports two land cover types that would be described as disturbed and developed. The tank site and spillway primarily support non-native grasses, while the proposed access road to the Project Site follows an existing dirt access road that is void of vegetation. Habitat on either side of the dirt road will be removed during development of the construction access road and is described as heavily disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS).

Riversidean Sage Scrub – Habitat along the access road to the tank site that will traverse up the north facing slope north of the tank site, supports a Riversidean sage scrub plant community. This plant community is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and supports recovering stands of white sage (Saliva apiana), brittle bush (Encelia farinsosa), and elderberry (Sambucus nigra). Other common plant species observed in the community include: cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), rod wirelettuce (Stephanomeria virgata), wirelettuce (Stephanomeria pauciflora), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), chia (Salvia columbariae),

5 As used in this report, “special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally and State listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank; wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species; and specially protected natural vegetation communities as designated by the CDFW.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 21
Tucker oak (Quercus john-tuckeri), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), shismus (Schismus sp.), and western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya).

Non-Native Grassland - The tank site itself support a non-native grassland plant community. This plant community is dominated by non-native grasses including wild oat (Avena fatua) and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) and supports mainly weedy/early successional species. Other common plant species that were observed in the non-native grassland vegetation community include: Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), elderberry, chamise, wire lettuce species, cryptantha, and schismus.

Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. The Project Site provides limited habitat for wildlife species except those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development. The plant communities on the Project Site have the potential to support a number of reptilian species known to occur in the area. Reptilian species detected during the field investigation include: Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes), and western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Other common reptile species that have the potential to occur on the project site include southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), California kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri)and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer).

The Project Site provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of avian species. Avian species detected during the field investigation include: lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), California quail (Callipepla gambelii), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos).

The survey area provides suitable foraging and cover habitat for a variety of mammalian species known to occur within the region. The only mammalian species detected during the field investigation was coyote (Canis lastrans). Common mammalian species that could potentially occur on-site include: cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), racoon (Procyon lotor), gopher (Thomomys bottae).

Nesting Birds
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted outside of breeding season. The Project Site has the potential to provide nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to urban environments.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 22
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511 and 3513) prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). Therefore, to ensure potential impacts are reduced to nesting birds, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1:

If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. In general, impacts to all bird species (common and special status) can be avoided by conducting work outside of the nesting season (generally March 15th to September 15th) and conducting worker awareness training. b, c) No Impact. Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional waters information was reviewed through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the Project Site.

No discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW were observed within the Project Site. The proposed spillway will connect into an existing catch basin southwest of the proposed tank site. The catch basin only receives local storm flows from the undeveloped area to the south, and the majority of the storm water percolates into the ground. During large/uncommon storm events, the catch basin can overflow and convey waters to the north, where they are conveyed via a concrete lined channel that ends approximately 0.15 mile to the north of the catch basin. As a result, the catch basin is not expected to fall under the regulatory authority of the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFW and regulatory approvals are not expected to be required. No impacts have been identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 23
variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both anthropogenic disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.

The Project Site is located on the north facing slopes immediately south of the southern boundary of residential development on the north side of Beaumont Avenue. Partially developed area and undeveloped land occurs to east, west and south of the site. The tank site is within the northern portion of the foothills and does not extend into the interior of the foothills. Further, there are no riparian corridors or creeks within the Project area.

Due to its proximity to Beaumont Avenue and existing residential development, the Project Site does not contribute to or function as a major wildlife movement corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to have a significant impact to wildlife movement opportunities or prevent local wildlife movement through the area. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances for the preservation of trees as no trees would be removed to allow for the Project. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) No Impact. The Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan as the Project would not occur on land designated for such use.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
( ) () ( ) ( )
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
( ) () ( ) ( )
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
( ) () ( ) ( )
Impact Discussion:
a, b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Study, dated January 14, 2022, was completed by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) for the Project Site and is available for review at the City of Loma Linda Community Development Department and is summarized herein.

In compliance with the CEQA and the City of Loma Linda, the report included a field survey and a standard archaeological record search through the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). This research included a review of previously completed projects within one-mile of the Project Site; a review of the recorded cultural resources within one-mile of the Project Site; a review of Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 24
listings for the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. Historic maps were also reviewed. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission was contacted to inquire of any the presence/absence of sacred or religious sites in the vicinity of the Project Site. Letters were also sent to Native American representatives identified by the Commission, requesting information on any issues, concerns, or resources they may be aware of and requested written responses. As of the date of the report, no responses have been received. City staff contacted Native American representatives identified as having interest in projects via email on January 27, 2022.

Each entity was informed of the Proposed Project and asked to comment or request consultation. A discussion of the consultation process related to Tribal Cultural Resources is provided in Section XVIII of this Initial Study.

The archaeological records search conducted at SCCIC included a 0.5-mile radius search. As shown in Table 4, the results indicate six cultural resources are located within a 0.5-mile radius of the Proposed Project, one of which (SBR-29,458H) is recorded on the subject property.

Table 4
Cultural Resources Within One-Half Mile of the Project
Site Number Site Type
SBR-6352H Historic Craftsman Citrus Ranch
P-36-012492 Historic single-family residence
P-33-022389/P-36-026050 Portion of the historic
Devers-Vista 220kV Transmission Line
SBR-17,226H Portion of the historic
Mira Loma-Vista 220kV Transmission Line
SBR-17,243H Historic refuse scatter
SBR-29,458H Historic irrigation complex remains
The records search results also indicate that 17 cultural resource studies have been conducted within 0.5 miles of the Project Site, five of which (Smith 1975; Hatheway 1988; McLean et al. 2013; DeCarlo and Winslow 2015; Perez and Fink 2016) overlap the Project Site. The EBI Consulting cultural resource survey recorded Site SBR-29,458H within the subject property as “the remains of an irrigation complex dating to the early 20th century (probably the 1920s based on archival aerial imagery and its likely association with CA-SBR-6352 [historic citrus ranch]). The only intact feature that was observed was an irrigation box constructed of brick and concrete” (Perez and Fink 2016). The site was evaluated as part of that study as not meeting any National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria due to no longer being intact and unable to offer any “data potential” (Perez and Fink 2016).

In addition to the SCCIC records search, the following historic sources were reviewed:
 The NRHP Index
 The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 25
 The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory
 Historic USGS maps
 Historic aerial photographs (1938, 1959, 1966, 1968, 1978, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2010)
These sources did not indicate the presence of any additional archaeological resources within the Project Site. According to the aerial photographs, the lower elevated area of the site was developed as a citrus grove from at least the late 1930s through the 1970s which correlates with the data presented by Perez and Fink (2016).

Results of the Field Survey
An archaeological survey for the Project Site was conducted on January 6, 2022 and included an intensive reconnaissance that covered the entire Project Site. The site primarily extends from the intersection of Mountain View and Beaumont avenues, east along Beaumont Avenue before meandering south, generally along the alignment of a well-defined hiking path, to the top of a hill and just west of electrical towers. Ground visibility ranged throughout the property and at times was hindered by hardscape, small pockets of sage and non-native grasses found throughout the property, and eucalyptus trees primarily situated at the base of the slope. According to aerial imagery, the property has been largely disturbed by use as a citrus grove from at least the 1930s through the 1970s. Other noted disturbances include an asphalt-paved path along Beaumont Avenue, terracing of the slope, the creation of dirt ramps for jumping bikes, hiking trails, and a concrete paved access road extending from Beaumont Avenue northwest and terminating within the Project Site. The survey did not identify any new cultural resources, and the level of noted disturbance appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts.

Although no new prehistoric or historic resources were identified during the survey, previously recorded Site SBR-29,458H, consisting of a brick and concrete irrigation box, was located and appeared in the same condition as when originally recorded in 2016 (Perez and Fink 2016). BFSA concludes that the identification of this concrete feature as an irrigation box is incorrect, and the concrete feature is actually a septic tank.

Although the septic tank was the only intact feature identified by Perez and Fink (2016), it was noted in their study that fragments of brick and irrigation pipe were also discovered in proximity to the feature. Perez and Fink (2016) determined it was likely associated with a circa 1920s-era irrigation complex possibly tied to SBR-6352 (Historic Craftsman Citrus Ranch). Regardless, Perez and Fink (2016) evaluated the resource as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Further, based upon the previous evaluation, it is clear the resource is also not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources and, therefore, not a significant resource under State and federal criteria. No new elements or information were identified in the current survey that would counter the previous evaluation of Site SBR-29,458H (Historic irrigation complex remains). Rather, improvements in the surrounding area, such as the paving of the adjacent dirt access road, have further diminished the integrity of the resource.

The Cultural Resources Study concluded that the Project Site was negative for the presence of significant cultural resources. While a septic tank recorded as Site SBR- Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 26
29,458H was present within the Project Site boundary, the resource has already been evaluated as not eligible for listing on the NRHP (Perez and Fink 2016). As stated previously, visibility on-site was moderate; however, the Project Site has been impacted by previous land modifications and improvements and, it is unclear if any additional cultural resources have ever existed on-site. The current state of the Project Site appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts. Given that the prior agricultural use and impacts to the site might have masked archaeological deposits and based upon the presence of a historic resource and somewhat limited visibility during the survey, there is a potential that buried archaeological deposits are present within the project boundaries. Construction of the water tank, pipeline and other related water system improvements may uncover unrecorded cultural deposits or features. Therefore, the following mitigation shall be required:

Mitigation Measure CR-1:

An archeological monitor shall be present during all soil-disturbing and grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to archaeological resources. In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil- disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent resources, and immediately notify the Native American monitor and client, as appropriate.

Mitigation Measure CR-2:

In the event resources are discovered, the monitor shall immediately notify the Principal Investigator (PI) of the discovery. The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource and notify the City to discuss significance and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure CR-3:

If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) that has also been reviewed by the Native American consultant/monitor and obtain written approval from the City to implement that program. Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated before grounddisturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring report.

The letter shall also indicate that no further work is required.

Mitigation Measure CR-4:

In the event field conditions such as modern disturbance post-dating previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or native soils are encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present, the PI shall submit a detailed letter to the lead agency requesting a modification to the monitoring program.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 27
Mitigation Measure CR-5:

The PI shall submit to the City a draft monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program.

For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) shall be included in the draft monitoring report. Recording sites with the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) shall be the responsibility of the PI, including recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.

Mitigation Measure CR-6:

In the event artifacts are collected, the PI shall be responsible for handling and ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate. The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City and any interested parties.

Mitigation Measure CR-7:

In the event artifacts are collected, the cost for curation shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities, particularly grading, could potentially disturb human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. Therefore, possible significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated and the following mitigation measure is required as a condition of project approval to reduce these impacts to a level below significant: The required mitigation measure is:

Mitigation Measure CR-8:

If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can be made regarding the provenance of the human remains, and the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Sec. 5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be undertaken including notifying the PI, whom shall notify the medical examiner after consultation with the City, either in person or via telephone.

Mitigation Measure CR-9:

In the event human remains are discovered, the site shall be isolated, and work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a determination can be made by the medical examiner in consultation with the PI concerning the provenance of the remains. The medical examiner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a field examination to determine the provenance. If a field examination is not warranted, the medical examiner will determine, with input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American origin. If Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 28
human remains are not Native American, the PI shall contact the medical examiner and notify them of the historic- era context of the burial. The medical examiner will determine the appropriate course of action with the PI and city staff (PRC 5097.98). If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and conveyed to the City. The decision for internment of the human remains shall be made in consultation with the City, the applicant/landowner, and any known descendant group.

Mitigation Measure CR-10:

If human remains are determined to be Native American, the medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, only the medical examiner can make this call. The NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information. The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the medical examiner has completed coordination to begin the consultation process in accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the State Health and Safety Code. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the human remains and associated grave goods.

Disposition of Native American human remains will be determined between the MLD and the PI, and, if the NAHC is unable to identify the MLD, or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC or the landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner; then upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground-disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree upon the appropriate treatment measures, the human remains and grave goods buried with the Native American human remains, shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environment
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
( ) ( ) () ( )
a) Less than Significant Impact.

Electricity:

Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service within the City and surrounding area. According to the California Energy Commission: Electricity Consumption by Planning Area, SCE under the category of “Agricultural/Water Pump” consumed 5,077-million gigawatt hours (GWh) in the year 2020. 6 Between the years
2015 and 2026, total electricity demand in SCE’s service area is estimated to increase by approximately 12,000 million GWh. Currently, the Project Site is vacant and does not receive electrical service. Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the extension of service for the operation of the SCADA system and security lighting. No significant increase in electrical service is anticipated. Electrical demand of the Proposed Project is expected to be sufficiently served by SCE’s current system. The electricity demand from the Proposed Project would represent an insignificant percentage of the overall demand in SCE’s service area. No significant impacts would result.

Natural Gas:

The Proposed Project is a water storage tank that would not require natural gas; therefore, no significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Fuel Consumption:

During construction of the Proposed Project, the use of fuel would be required during construction for operation of heavy equipment, and by employees occasionally traveling to and from the Project Site for maintenance. The Proposed Project is not expected to result in a substantial demand for fuel that would require expanded supplies or require the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. Fuel use during construction would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is recommended.

6 https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx. Accessed 3/29//2020.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 30
b) Less than Significant Impact. Project design and operation would comply with the County of San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Plan, and the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards related to appliance efficiency regulations, and standards. Project development would not cause inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including Title 24, AB 32, and SB 32; therefore, the Project is consistent with AB 32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide to 1990 levels by 2020 as discussed in Sections III and VIII of this Initial Study.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
( ) ( ) () ( )
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) () ( )
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
iv) Landslides? ( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
( ) ( ) () ( )
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 31
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
( ) () ( ) ( )
Impact Discussion:
a)
i, ii) Less Than Significant Impact. A Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 17, 2021, was prepared by Converse Consultants for the Proposed Project. The report is available for review at the City of Loma Linda Community Development Department and is summarized herein.

As shown on Figure 10.1 of the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. As concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project Site is not located within a currently mapped State or local (i.e., San Bernardino County) Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture. The nearest fault is the San Jacinto Fault located approximately onemile southwest of the Project Site. The tank and related improvements are considered essential to the City's water system and would be excluded from typical development standards for seismic protection. The Proposed Project would however be constructed in accordance with recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation to ensure the tank would withstand strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. iii) No Impact. Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon in which a cohesion-less soil mass suffers a substantial reduction in its shear strength due to the development of excess pore pressures. During earthquakes, excess pore pressures in saturated soil deposits may develop as a result of induced cyclic shear stresses, resulting in liquefaction. As concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project Site is not located within an area designated as a liquefaction risk by the State. Based on the absence of shallow groundwater, dense soil and shallow bedrock conditions, the potential of liquefaction induced settlement is anticipated to be negligible. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
iv) Less than Significant Impact. The southern portion of the City (commonly known as the South Hills) has steep natural slopes, which are susceptible to instability in certain areas. The type of instability anticipated in this area includes deep-seated landslides, surficial soil slips, wet debris flows, and surficial creep.

As discussed in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Proposed Project, landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The Project Site is not located within a designated State Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 32
or local landslide hazard zone. The slopes within and surrounding the Project Site were observed for slumps, scarps, fissures, deformation or seepage. No visible indications of potential slope movement or instability were observed during our geologic mapping or subsurface exploration. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less than Significant Impact. During the development of the Proposed Project, project-related dust may be generated due to the operation of machinery on-site or due to high winds. Additionally, erosion of soils could occur due to a storm event.

Development of the Proposed Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the Proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-2009-DWQ).

Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize soil erosion. Adherence to BMPs would ensure that the Proposed Project does not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site was reviewed for the potential occurrence of being located on a geologic unit and/or soil that could possibly become unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project. As discussed in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Proposed Project, landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The Project Site is not located within a designated Ste or local landslide hazard zone. The slopes within and surrounding the site were observed for slumps, scarps, fissures, deformation or seepage. No visible indications of potential slope movement or instability were observed during our geologic mapping or subsurface exploration.

Liquefaction is defined as the phenomenon in which a cohesion-less soil mass suffers a substantial reduction in its shear strength due to the development of excess pore pressures. During earthquakes, excess pore pressures in saturated soil deposits may develop as a result of induced cyclic shear stresses, resulting in liquefaction. As concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation, Project Site is not located within an area designated as a liquefaction risk by the State. Based on the absence of shallow groundwater, dense soil and shallow bedrock conditions, the potential of liquefaction induced settlement is anticipated to be negligible.

Seismically induced settlement occurs in loose, granular sediments during ground shaking associated with earthquakes. Based on the dense soil and shallow bedrock conditions at the Project Site, the potential of seismic settlement is anticipated to be negligible.

Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials over deeper layers which have liquefied due to ground shaking. It differs from slope failure in that complete ground failure involving large movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 33
characterized by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. Due to the low risk of liquefaction.

In accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) D-100 Standards, structural calculations were prepared for the tank to ensure the design would withstand static/vertical forces, seismic and lateral forces in the event of a major earthquake.

Recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Investigation shall become conditions of approval for the Project. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. Expansive soils are composed of fine-grained silts and clays which are subject to swelling and contracting. The amount of swelling and contracting is subject to the amount of fine-grained clay materials present in the soils and the amount of moisture either introduced or extracted from the soils. The Project Site consists of Saugus sandy loan as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey;
7 which is considered well-draining
and has minimal clay materials. Based on the exploratory borings, test pits, and laboratory test results performed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, the subsurface soils at the site consist primarily of a mixture of sand; silt and gravel; roots and rootlets; some desiccation; some porosity; loose to dense; and dry to moist. The alluvium is underlain at varying depths by bedrock that consists of the San Timoteo Formation from the surface and below the topsoil or alluvium at depths from surface to

18.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Where observed, the material was generally comprised of sandstone, silty sandstone and some sandy siltstone with some scattered gravel up to 3 inches and a few cobbles up to 5 inches. Due to the absence of significant amounts of clay, the potential for expansion of soils on-site is considered to be very low.

No impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
f) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Implemented. Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources significant to our culture, and are afforded protection by federal, State, and local environmental guidelines. Geologic formations are ranked by their potential to contain significant, nonrenewable palaeontologic resources (SNPR). The Loma Linda Planning Area is in the southern San Bernardino Basin, a structural basin that filled with sediments as a result of activity on the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault systems. Sedimentary deposition has been taking place in this basin since late Miocene time.

Although the Project Site does not visibly contain a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, grading could expose resources that may exist below the surface. Therefore, possible significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated and the following mitigation measures are required as a condition of project approval to reduce these impacts to a level below significant. The required mitigation measure is:

7 https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.us-da.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed 3/1/22.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 34
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:

Excavations into any areas of exposed Miocene (and earlier) deposits of the San Timoteo Formation will be monitored by a qualified paleontologist consistent with the policies and protocols of the San Bernardino County Museum. The Paleontologist shall determine the extent and duration of monitoring required and provide a report to the City.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:

Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface of the earth and a portion of this energy is reflected back toward space as infrared radiation. This infrared radiation released from the earth that otherwise would escape back into space is instead absorbed or “trapped” by GHGs, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.

GHGs occur in the atmosphere naturally and are also emitted by human sources or are formed by secondary reactions in the atmosphere. The following are GHGs that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Global warming potential (GWP) is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to CO2. The GWP of a GHG is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time (i.e., lifetime) that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The concept of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) is used to account for the different GWP potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation.

The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; however, no single project alone is expected to measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to a global, local, or microclimate.

Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small additions, on a global basis.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project was screened for emission generation using SCAQMD “Air Quality Handbook” guidelines and Emission Factors for On-Road HeavyHeavy Duty Diesel Trucks (2022). Operational emissions were not screened as they are Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 35
considered negligible. However, heavy-duty off-road equipment associated with construction would result in exhaust related GHG emissions.

There are no adopted GHG emission thresholds that are directly applicable to the Project. The SCAQMD has adopted an CEQA significance threshold of 10,000 MT per year of CO2e for industrial projects and 3,000 MT per year for residential and commercial uses where SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD, 2008b). The City of Loma Linda uses the County of San Bernardino GHG Reduction Plan (Plan) that includes measures developed in order to reduce GHG emissions. The Plan included a threshold level above 3,000 MT CO2e per year used to identify residential and commercial projects that require the use of screening tables or a project-specific technical analysis to quantify and mitigate project emissions. Consistent with SCAQMD and County of San Bernardino recommendations, construction emissions for the Project were amortized over the average lifetime of a project’s operations.

As shown in Table 5, GHG emissions associated with construction of the Project were estimated at 417.9 MTCO2e over a 30-year period. When the total is amortized over the 30-year life of the Project, annual construction emissions would be approximately

13.9 MT CO2e per year.

Table 5
Construction-Related GHG Emissions
Source/Description CO2e
(MT)
Road/Pipeline 269.0
Water Tank 148.9
Total 417.9
Amortized Construction Emissions (per year) 13.9
County of San Bernardino GHG Threshold 3,000
Exceed GHG Threshold? No
Source: SCAQMD Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions
Factors (2022)
The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required b) Less than Significant Impact. The applicable plan for the reduction of emissions of GHGs is the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) formerly San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan. The City of Loma Linda is addressed in the Loma Linda Chapter of the San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan, released March 5, 2014. The Plan has been prepared to assist the City in conforming to the GHG emissions reductions as mandated under AB 32. The SCAQMD’s Tier 3 thresholds used Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets:
 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 36
 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.  2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32 the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through and enforceable statewide emission cap, which was phased in starting in 2012. Therefore, as the Project’s emissions meet the threshold for compliance with Executive Order S-3-05, the Project’s emissions would also comply with the goals of AB 32. Additionally, as the Project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD, the Project would also be on track to meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by EO-B-30-15 and SB 32. Furthermore, all the post-2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the Project would be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect.

At a level of 13.9 MTCO2e per year, as demonstrated in Table 5, the Proposed Project’s emissions fall below the SCAQMD and San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types and is in compliance with the reduction goals of the San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan, AB 32, and SB 32.

The Proposed Project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and the City of Loma Linda’s policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City’s General Plan).

No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to create a temporary hazard to the public or environment through the transportation, use and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, paint, and other materials. These materials are typical of materials delivered to construction sites.

The future use of the site for water storage and distribution would not require the storage of hazardous materials (i.e., fuels, oils, solvents, pesticides, electronic waste, and other materials) at the site. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The nearest school to the Project Site is Bryn Mawr Elementary School, located approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the Project Site at 11680 Whitter Avenue.

No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. The Project Site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites per the EnviroStor interactive database map.
8 No significant hazard to the public or the
environment is anticipated. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. There are no airports in the City of Loma Linda and the nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Bernardino International Airport located approximately 3.5 miles

8 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?assembly=42 Accessed March 1, 2022.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 38
to the north. The 1.6 MG water tank would be constructed on the south slope of a hill with a ridgeline elevation of 1,505 feet. The tank would be constructed within a cut slope at a finished elevation of 1,480 feet, and would extend approximately 10 feet above the ridgeline (1,480 feet plus 35-foot high water tank minus 1,505 foot ridgeline). Impacts to aircraft are not anticipated. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
f) No Impact. During disasters, the City of Loma Linda is required to coordinate emergency operations with the San Bernardino County Operational Area and, in some instances, other local governments. Local agencies are a part of a broader Emergency Management System, overseen by the State of California’s Southern Region Emergency Operations Center. The City of Loma Linda is required to coordinate emergency operations with the San Bernardino County Operational Area and, in some instances, other local governments.

The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor do streets adjacent to the site serve as emergency evacuation routes.
9 During construction and long-term
operation, the City would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. The Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
g) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site occurs within a Very High Wildfire Risk Exposure area, as shown on Figure 10.4 of the City of Loma Linda General Plan.10 The Proposed Project however does not include any combustible materials. To minimize the threat to persons, property, and the environment resulting from wildfires, the Proposed Project shall implement Goal 10.3 and Policies 10-3.1 through 10-3.9 of the City’s General Plan, stated in Chapter 10 Safety Element, Section C Fire Hazards. The Proposed Project would comply with CBC and California Fire Code. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

9 http://readydl.com/landing/eoc06071/index.html. Accessed 3/1/22. 10 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Figure 10.3/Page 10-11.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 39
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
( ) ( ) () ( )
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ( ) ( ) () ( )
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
( ) ( ) () ( )
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
( ) ( ) () ( )
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
( ) ( ) () ( )
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a, e) Less than Significant Impact. Preparation and grading of the Project Site for the tank, pipeline, access road, and drain line would disturb approximately 2.85 acres and therefore is subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Construction activities covered under the State of California’s General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activities that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP is to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of stormwater associated with construction activities; and 2) identify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 40
control measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the construction site during and after construction.

The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prior to the issuance of building permits. Mandatory compliance with the Proposed Project’s WQMP, in addition to compliance with NPDES Permit requirements, would ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially impact groundwater supplies or to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge as the Project Site is not designated for such use. The Proposed Project does not include groundwater wells that would impact the production rate of any nearby pre-existing wells. The Project would provide additional water storage capacity for fire protection, emergency and residential use and includes the construction of a new steel water storage tank with approximately 1.6 MG of storage capacity. No adverse significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c, i-iii ) Less than Significant Impact. Water quality objectives would be addressed by implementing several Best Management Practices (BMP’s). The Project was designed to closely mimic the natural drainage pattern of the existing hillside and to connect to the existing catch basin southwest of the Project Site. As designed, flows would be dispersed from impervious areas into the proposed spillway located southwest of the new water tank. The proposed access road was intentionally designed without curb or gutter, thus preventing flows from concentrating. The design of the access road is intended to allow all run-off to sheet flow across the roadway and into the adjacent natural areas where it would be allowed to infiltrate. The Proposed Project’s water quality objectives would be achieved through a combination of site design, impervious area dispersion, and increased infiltration capacity.

The Proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires that the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must list BMPs to avoid and minimize soil erosion. Adherence to BMPs would ensure that the Proposed Project does not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

The City Engineer has designed the drainage plan to ensure the Project would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site occurs outside of any FEMA flood risk exposure11 and does not occur within an identified tsunami or seiche zone due to its

11 City of Loma Linda General Plan, Figure 10.3. Page 10-25 Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 41
inland location; therefore, the risk of release of pollutants from the Project Site in these events is not anticipated. With implementation of drainage improvements and connection to the existing catch basin south of the Project Site, potential hazards would be considered a less than significant impact. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Impact Discussion:
a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The physical division of an established community is typically associated with construction of a linear feature, such as a major highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge, which would impair mobility in an existing community or between a community and an outlying area. The Proposed Project is the construction and operation of a 1.6 MG water tank and related water system improvements. The Proposed Project does not necessitate construction of any new public roadways, flood control channels, or other structures that would physically divide an established community. The Project Site and surrounding area are largely vacant. The site of the proposed water tank occurs approximately 800 feet south of the nearest residence to the north (north side of Beaumont Avenue).

The Project Site occurs in the Open Space District and the water system improvement project is a permitted use. The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s Open Space policies 9.2.81, 9.2.8.2 and 9.2.8.3 of the City’s General Plan,12 which shows a majority of the Project Site as “Targeted Open Space” and does not conflict with any other policies or regulations. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

12 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Page 9-10 – 9-11.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) () ( ) b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 42
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Impact Discussion:
a, b) No Impact. The Project Site is within the Aggregate Resources Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, as shown on the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, Figure 5.11-1-Mineral Resource Zones 2 & 3 in the Southwest Quadrant of County. 13 Aggregate MRZ 3 is
defined as having moderate potential or possible location of aggregate resources, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. Nearly the entire Valley Region of San Bernardino County is designated either MRZ-2 or MRZ-3. The Project Site could not feasibly be permitted as a viable aggregate mine site and construction of the water tank, access road, pipeline and drainage spillway would not create a substantial demand of aggregate resources. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
( ) ( ) () ( )

13 San Bernardino Countywide Plan. Figure 5.11-1/Page 5.11-5.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 43
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or-an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Impact Discussion:
a) Less than Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require site preparation (i.e., grading and excavation), and construction. These activities require the use of heavy equipment such as graders, backhoes, and cranes. This equipment would generate noise that would be heard both on and off the Project Site.

Noise can be measured in the form of a decibel (dB), which is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound. The predominant rating scales for noise in the State of California are the Equivalent-Continuous Sound Level (Leq), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which are both based on the A-weighted decibel (dBA). Leq is defined as the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. CNEL is defined as the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a weighting factor of 5 dBA applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA applied to events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. defined as sleeping hours). The State of California’s Office of Noise Control has established standards and guidelines for acceptable community noise levels based on the CNEL and Ldn rating scales Low-density residential uses are most sensitive to community noise with noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn and below considered “normally acceptable” (65 dBA CNEL/Ldn for multifamily uses). For schools, churches hospitals, and business and commercial areas, noise levels up to 70 dBA CNEL/Ldn are “normally acceptable.” For industrial, manufacturing, and utility uses, noise levels up to 75 dBA CNEL/Ldn may be considered “normally acceptable.”
Adjacent uses to the Project Site include vacant land to the south and east, a dog park to the west, and a dog park to the north followed by Beaumont Avenue and residential development. Sensitive receivers near the Project Site include residential development north of Beaumont Avenue. Construction noise would be temporary, intermittent and of short duration. Operation of the 1.6 MG water tank would not result in any significant long-term noise impacts and operational traffic noise generated by the Proposed Project would be limited to visits by public works staff for maintenance and inspection.

Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The primary sources of vibration during construction would be from bulldozers, other vibratory equipment could be used during construction of the access road. Sensitive receivers near the Project Site include residential development north of Beaumont Avenue. Groundborne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 44
vibration oscillations. As with noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When groundborne vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs.

It is not anticipated that construction of the Proposed Project would involve pile-driving activities. The use of rollers and dozers, equipment expected to have contribute to vibration impacts, associated with construction would be brief and would not affect a given location for more than a few days. In addition, the use of such equipment would be limited to daytime hours. As a result, although construction of the Proposed Project would include heavy equipment, it is unlikely that construction would result in perceptible groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Based on reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), unmitigated Project construction vibration levels are expected to approach

0.124 in/sec PPV. Based on Caltrans vibration thresholds, the Proposed Project construction activities will remain below the 0.3 in/sec PPV building damage for older residential structures close to the Project Site.

Operation of the Proposed Project would not generate groundborne vibration. Therefore, no adverse significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. There are no airports in Loma Linda and the nearest airport is the San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA). The airport currently serves small aircraft and cargo flights; it does not offer commercial flights. The City is outside the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise contours of the SBIA. Therefore, aircraft noise is not considered a concern at the Project Site. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Impact Discussion:
a, b) No Impact. The Proposed Project includes the construction and operation of a 1.6 MG water tank and related improvements to meet current and projected City demands for Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 45
service. The Project is a permitted use within the Open Space District. The Project would service the existing community and would not directly induce the need for new homes or businesses or indirectly result in population growth by extending infrastructure The Project would not result in the displacement of existing people or housing as the Project Site is currently vacant. No housing is proposed as part of the Project and no replacement housing would be necessary.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:

Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Parks? ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
Impact Discussion:

Fire Protection
No Impact. The Fire and Rescue Division of the Department of Public Safety provide fire protection for the City of Loma Linda.14 Fire Station 251, located at 11325 Loma Linda Drive, and Fire Station 252, located at 10520 Ohio Street, services the City of Loma Linda. To ensure adequate fire protection services in an emergency, the City of Loma Linda maintains a joint response/automatic aid agreement with the fire departments in neighboring cities including Colton, Redlands, and San Bernardino. The Department also participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a change to existing employment or cause an increase in the population of the City and would not result in the need for additional fire protection. No adverse impacts have been identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

14 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Page 8-2.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 46
Police Protection
No Impact. Police protection for the City is provided by and contracted through the San Bernardino Sheriff‘s Department, located at 655 East Third Street in San Bernardino, at Sheriff’s Headquarters, Central Station.15 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not cause an increase in the population of the City and would not result in the need for additional police protection. No adverse impacts related to police protection are expected and no mitigation measures are required.

Schools
No Impact. Public education in the City of Loma Linda is provided by Redlands Unified School District (RUSD) except for the western portion of the City, which is served by Colton Joint Unified School District (CJUSD).16 In addition to these school districts, one community day school, overseen by San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office, is located in the City of Loma Linda. Loma Linda Academy, a private Seventh-day Adventist school, also provides schooling for kindergarten through high school grades. The nearest school is Bryn Mawr Elementary School located approximately 0.56 miles northeast of the Project Site at 11680 Whitter Avenue. The Proposed Project would not generate any new students and would not generate the need for new facilities. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Parks
No Impact. Loma Linda currently has existing parkland, and total proposed park land of approximately 40 acres.
17 The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in population.

Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()

15 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Page 8-4.
16 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Page 8-6.
17 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Page 8-12.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 47
Impact Discussion:
a, b) No Impact. The Proposed Project includes the construction and operation of a 1.6 MG water tank and related improvements and would not result in new permanent jobs that would directly impact a neighborhood or regional park or other recreational facility. The Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities and would not require the expansion of existing facilities or require the construction of new recreation facilities.

Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
( ) ( ) () ( )
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
( ) ( ) () ( )
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( ) ( ) () ( ) Impact Discussion:

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact. a) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Loma Linda Measure V requires that longterm traffic Levels of Service be maintained at Level of Service C (or better), except where the current level is lower than Level of Service C. At locations where the Level of Service is below Level of Service C, the Project shall be required to provide improvements that maintain Levels of Service that are no worse than those existing at the time an application for development is filed. Measure V does not specify criteria for determining the need to prepare a transportation impact analysis for Level of Service evaluations; however, based on the relatively low Project trip generation, as demonstrated by exemption under the County of San Bernardino criteria, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to appreciably contribute Level of Service degradation.

Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have a negligible effect on Levels of Service and would not conflict with Measure V requirements.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 48
An existing Class II bike lane occurs approximately 0.5 miles north of the Project Site along Barton Road18. The Project Site does not intersect or connect to any bike facilities.

Omnitrans is the primary provider of public transportation within the western portion of San Bernardino County, including the City of Loma Linda. Omnitrans operates five routes that traverse Loma Linda. The Riverside Transit Authority also operates one route that connects Loma Linda to downtown Riverside. There are about 60 bus stops within City limits. The City facilitates pedestrian travel through the design of pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods with well-connected streets and sidewalks. The City also provides convenient and safe sidewalk routes to shopping, schools and recreation areas. One such route connects Hulda Crooks Park to Beaumont Avenue thus encouraging pedestrian travel. In addition, the City provides an off-road trail system designed for walking and hiking activities.

The Proposed Project would not require additional bike facilities, public transportation, pedestrian facilities, or any additional circulation except the proposed access road which would strictly be used for maintenance purposes. Therefore, the Proposed Project can be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. No significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project’s VMT impact has been assessed in accordance with guidance from the County of San Bernardino TIS Guidelines for CEQA. The County of San Bernardino TIS Guidelines identify screening criteria for certain types of projects that typically reduce VMT and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Since the City of Loma Linda does not have City-specific criteria for the preparation of transportation impact studies, the VMT refers to the County of San Bernardino criteria.

The criteria for assessing the need to prepare a transportation impact study is specified in the County of San Bernardino Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (July 2019) [“TIS Guidelines”]. As specified in the County of San Bernardino TIS Guidelines, the requirement to prepare a transportation impact study (with Level of Service analysis) should be based upon one or more of the following criteria:
 If a project generates 100 or more trips without consideration of pass-by trips during any peak hour.
 If a project is located within 300 feet of:
o The intersection of two streets designated as Collector or higher in the County’s General Plan or the Department’s Master Plan; or, o An impacted intersection as determined by the Traffic Division.  If this project creates safety or operational concerns.  The project has the potential to generate VMT that could result in a transportation impact as noted in the significance criteria presented later in this memorandum.  If a project generates less than 100 trips without consideration of pass-by trips during any peak hour, a study maybe required if there are special concerns.

18 City of Loma Linda General Plan Figure 6.3, Existing Bicycle Facilities Map, Page 6-7.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 49
The construction activities associated with the Project would be temporary and would utilize existing public works equipment and staff. Construction of the Proposed Project is estimated to require two months for the water tank and four months for the access road, pipeline and drainage improvements. Construction traffic would be limited to delivery of equipment and associated employee trips during the six-month period, which is anticipated to be below the 100 AM and PM peak hour trips thresholds established by the County of San Bernardino criteria.

Similarly, post-construction activities would involve inspection and general monthly maintenance and generating fewer than 100 peak hour trips. The Proposed Project is exempt from preparation of a transportation impact analysis for Level of Service based on the County of San Bernardino criteria as adopted for use by the City of Loma Linda. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a negligible effect on Levels of Service and would not conflict with Measure V requirements. As such, the Proposed Project shall not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Subdivision (b)(1).

Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c, d) Less than Significant Impact. Site plans were reviewed by the City Manager to ensure that the Proposed Project would not create substantial hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Primary access to the site would be provided via an access road from Beaumont Avenue. The Proposed Project location (i.e., set back south of Beaumont Avenue, and south and east of the Large Dog Park and Small Dog Park, respectively), would not cause a substantial increase in hazards or provide inadequate emergency access. Plans will be subject to review and approval by the City Fire and Police Departments. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
( ) () ( ) ( )
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 50
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
( ) () ( ) ( )
Impact Discussion:
a,b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section V of this document, a Cultural Resources Study, dated January 14, 2022, was completed by BFSA for the Project Site and is available for review at the City of Loma Linda Community Development Department. The report was prepared to determine impacts to historical resources that may occur on the Project Site, including Native American cultural resources.

City staff contacted Native American representatives identified as having interest in projects via email on January 27, 2022. Each entity was informed of the Proposed Project and asked to comment. Representatives of groups from the following Tribes were notified: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, Ramona Band of Cahuilla, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Gabrieleno Tongva Nation.

Responses were received from three Tribes. Ryan Nordness of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded on February 16, 2022 via email. Nordness indicated that the proposed project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe. He further indicated that due to the nature and location of the proposed project, SMBMI does not have any concerns with the project’s implementation at this time. SMBMI did request conditions for the project.

Arysa Gonzalez Romero, representing the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded via email on February 25, 2022. Ms. Romero noted the project area is outside the Cahuilla traditional territory, however it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and the Tribe is requesting the presence of a monitor.

On March 1, 2022, Joseph Ontiveros, representing the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, responded with a letter noting the project area is within the traditional territory use areas.

On behalf of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Mr. Ontiveros requested formal consultation with the City.

The following mitigation measures were provided by San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and shall be made a part of Conditions of Approval for the Project. The mitigation measures are:

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 51
Mitigation Measure TCR-1:

In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2:

If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1.

The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3:

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

Mitigation Measure TCR-4:

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

Mitigation Measure TCR-5:

Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 52
Mitigation Measure TCR-6:

The City shall allow for the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

Based on completion of consultation under AB 52 with interested tribes, additional recommendations may be incorporated into the Project’s Conditions of Approval.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures and the addition of recommendations from interested tribes as Conditions of Approval, would ensure that potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are reduced to a less than significant level.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
( ) ( ) () ( )
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 53
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a,c) No Impact. The Project Site and surrounding area is within the service area of the City of Loma Linda. The Proposed Project will provide necessary expansion of the City's existing water system. Any potential environmental impacts associated with the expansion have been addressed herein. N0 significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated and mitigation measures required for potential impacts are provided in the Cultural, Geology/Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources sections. b) Less than Significant impact. The Project is the construction and operation of a

1.6 MG water tank and related improvements to provide additional storage to meet customer demands. The use of additional groundwater would not result. Additionally, the Proposed Project does not include any uses that would increase water demand.

Construction of the water tank is proposed to serve the existing needs of the City and would not directly and indirectly result in additional demands on the system. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
d, e) Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste collection in the City of Loma Linda is primarily disposed of at the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill which is operated by the County of San Bernardino.19 The San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill has been designed by the County of San Bernardino to accommodate growth for the next 20 years and beyond. (San Timoteo: permitted until January 203920). Implementation of the Proposed Project would not generate additional solid waste beyond initial construction (i.e., clearing) activities. No additional employees or office space would be required or constructed. The solid waste collection system would not be affected by the development of the Project Site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()

19 City of Loma Linda General Plan. Page 8-20.
20 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1906?siteID=2688 (accessed 1-5-21).

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 54
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
( ) ( ) ( ) ()
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a) No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor do streets adjacent to the site serve as emergency evacuation routes.21 During construction and long-term operation, the City would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. The Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b, d) Less than Significant impact. As shown on Figure 10.4 of the City’s General Plan, the Project Site occurs in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Prolonged droughts coupled with high winds and dry vegetation during summer months creates the highest fire risk in the South Hills. Loma Linda is subject to Santa Ana winds, which are defined by the National Weather Service as "strong down slope winds that blow through the mountain passes in southern California. These winds, which can easily exceed 40 miles per hour, are warm and dry and can severely exacerbate brush or forest fires, especially under drought conditions." These winds, which typically occur several times per year between September and December, have been known to topple power lines, trees, and streetlights and can also spread uncontrolled wildfire and hinder firefighters from reaching fires. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief to ensure a less than significant impact.

The Project Site occurs outside of any FEMA flood risk exposure22. The Project Site is vacant and is adjacent to the South Hills. Although the Project Site is located in an area with very high fire hazard and landslide susceptibility, operation of the water tank would only require general maintenance and scheduled inspections. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not risk the loss, injury, or death involving pollutant concentrations from a

21 http://readydl.com/landing/eoc06071/index.html. Accessed 3/1/22. 22 City of Loma Linda General Plan, Figure 10.3. Page 10-25 Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 55
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, or expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) No Impact. The Proposed Project includes the construction and operation of a 1.6 MG water tank, pipeline, access road and drainage improvements, all of which would require long term maintenance. However, the risk of fire from maintenance activities is not anticipated. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
( ) ( ) () ()
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
( ) ( ) () ( )
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
( ) ( ) () ( )
Impact Discussion:
a) Less than Significant Impact. A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), dated May 2021, was completed by Jennings Environmental, LLC., to determine significant impacts to the quality of the environment of the Project Site including impacts on habitats and threatened or endangered species. The report concluded that no sensitive habitat, including USFWS designated critical habitat, occurs within or adjacent to the Project Site. The Project Site and immediate surrounding areas contains habitat suitable for nesting birds and thus, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as provided in this Initial Study is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 56
A Cultural Resources Study, dated January 14, 2022, was completed by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. to determine potential significant impacts to the major periods of California history and prehistory at the Project Site. The Cultural Resources Study concluded that the Project Site was negative for the presence of significant cultural resources. While a septic tank recorded as Site SBR-29,458H was present within the Project Site boundary, the resource has already been evaluated as not eligible for listing on the NRHP (Perez and Fink 2016). As stated previously, visibility on-site was moderate; however, the Project alignment has been impacted by previous land modifications and improvements and, it is unclear if any additional cultural resources have ever existed on-site. The current state of the Project Site appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts. Given that the prior agricultural use and impacts to the site might have masked archaeological deposits and based upon the presence of a historic resource and somewhat limited visibility during the survey, there is a potential that buried archaeological deposits are present within the project boundaries. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-10, GEO-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-6 as provided in this Initial Study would ensure impacts to cultural resources including tribal cultural resources are less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are warranted.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual affects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. The CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15130 (a) and (b), states:
(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.

Impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be considered individually or cumulatively adverse or considerable. No major development projects were identified within the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Public works projects are a permitted within the Open Space District and would be consistent with the City of Loma Linda General Plan. Impacts identified in this Initial Study can be reduced to a less than significant impact. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The incorporation of design measures, City of Loma Linda policies, standards, and guidelines and proposed Mitigation Measures as identified within this Initial Study would ensure that the Proposed Project would have no significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly on an individual or cumulative basis. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 57
Draft Initial Study for the City of Loma Linda

1.6 MG Water Tank Page 58

REFERENCES
California Important Farmland Finder, California Department of Conservation.

City of Loma Linda General Plan, May 2009
ELMT Consulting. Biological Resources Assessment for a 1.6 Million Gallon Water Tank and Supporting Infrastructure. March 11, 2022.

Lilburn Corporation. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Summary Tables. March 2022.

Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Cultural Resources Study for the Beaumont Avenue 1.6 MG Tank Project. January 14, 2022.

San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Sheet 2 of 2.

San Bernardino County Hazards Overlay Map No. FH31C.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey Interactive Map Accessed 11/23/2020 from https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

LIST OF PREPARERS
Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive,
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Tel: (909) 890-1818
Natalie Patty, Project Manager
Cheryl Tubbs, Vice President
MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Case No:

Project Name: 1.6 MG Tank
Lead Agency: City of Loma Linda Date: January 2023

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction occurs
between February 1st and August 31st, a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. In general, impacts to all bird species
(common and special status) can be avoided by
conducting work outside of the nesting season
(generally March 15th to September 15th) and conducting worker awareness training.

City of Loma
Linda Public
Works
Department
No more
than three
days prior to
ground
disturbance
Review of survey
results
Document
verification

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: An archeological monitor shall be present during all soil-disturbing and
grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to archaeological resources. In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or
prehistoric, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil- disturbing
activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to overlay
adjacent resources, and immediately notify the Native
American monitor and client, as appropriate.

City of Loma
Linda Public
Works
Department and
Qualified
Archaeologist
In the event
cultural
resources
are
discovered
Review of finds On-site inspection
Mitigation Measure CR-2: In the event resources are
discovered, the monitor shall immediately notify the
Principal Investigator (PI) of the discovery. The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource and notify the City to discuss significance and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional mitigation is required.

Qualified
Archaeologist
In the event
resources
are
discovered
Receipt of letter Review of letter

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Mitigation Measure CR-3: If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery
Program (ADRP) that has also been reviewed by the
Native American consultant/monitor and obtain written
approval from the City to implement that program.

Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated
before ground- disturbing activities in the area of
discovery will be allowed to resume. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring report. The letter
shall also indicate that no further work is required.

Principle
Investigator
If resource is
found to be
significant
Receipt of
program or letter
Review of
program or letter
Mitigation Measure CR-4: In the event field conditions
such as modern disturbance post-dating previous
grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil
formations, or native soils are encountered that may
reduce or increase the potential for resources to be
present, the PI shall submit a detailed letter to the lead agency requesting a modification to the monitoring
program.

Principle
Investigator
In the event
field
conditions
require
modification
to program
Receipt of program
or letter
Review of program
or letter
Mitigation Measure CR-5: The PI shall submit to the City a draft monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes
the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program. For significant
archaeological resources encountered during
monitoring, the Archaeological Data RecoveryProgram
(ADRP) shall be included in the draft monitoring report.

Recording sites with the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) shall be the
responsibility of the PI, including recording (on the
appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or
potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program.

Principle
Investigator
During
monitoring of
the site.

Receipt of Draft
Monitoring Report
Review of Draft
Monitoring Report

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Mitigation Measure CR-6: In the event artifacts are
collected, the PI shall be responsible for handling and ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify
function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.

The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City and any interested parties.

Principle
Investigator
In the event
artifacts are
collected
Receipt of Final
monitoring report
Review of Final
monitoring report
Mitigation Measure CR-7: In the event artifacts are
collected, the cost for curation shall be the responsibility of the property owner.

City of Loma
Linda Public
Works
Department
In the event
artifacts are
collected
Receipt of payment Review of payment
Mitigation Measure CR-8: If human remains are
discovered, work shall halt in that area until a
determination can be made regarding the provenance of
the human remains, and the following procedures as set
forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC
(Sec. 5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code
(Sec. 7050.5) shall be undertaken including notifying the PI, whom shall notify the medical examiner after
consultation with the City, either in person or via
telephone.

City of Loma
Linda Public
Works
Department, and
County Coroner
Throughout
construction
of the project
Following
inspection by the
County Coroner
On-site inspection
Mitigation Measure CR-9: In the event human remains
are discovered, the site shall be isolated, and work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay
adjacent human remains until a determination can be
made by the medical examiner in consultation with the
PI concerning the provenance of the remains. The
medical examiner, in consultation with the PI, will
determine the need for a field examination to determine the provenance. If a field examination is not warranted, the medical examiner will determine, with input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American origin. If human remains are not Native
American, the PI shall contact the medical examiner and notify them of the historic- era context of the burial. The medical examiner will determine the appropriate course
of action with the PI and city staff (PRC 5097.98). If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and conveyed to the City. The decision for
internment of the human remains shall be made in
Principle
Investigator and
Medical Examiner
Throughout
construction
of the project
In the event human
remains are found.

On-site inspection

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
consultation with the City, the applicant/landowner, and any known descendant group.

Mitigation Measure CR-10:

If human remains are determined to be Native
American, the medical examiner will notify the NAHC
within 24 hours. By law, only the medical examiner can
make this call. The NAHC will immediately identify the
person or persons determined to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information. The
MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the medical examiner has completed coordination to
begin the consultation process in accordance with
CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the
State Health and Safety Code. The MLD will have 48
hours to make recommendations to the property owner
or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the human remains and associated
grave goods.

Disposition of Native American human remains will be
determined between the MLD and the PI, and, if the
NAHC is unable to identify the MLD, or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being
notified by the NAHC or the landowner or authorized
representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD
and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by
the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner; then upon the discovery of multiple Native
American human remains during a ground-disturbing
land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with descendants is necessary to
consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple
Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate
treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from
review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree upon
the appropriate treatment measures, the human
remains and grave goods buried with the Native
American human remains, shall be reinterred with
appropriate dignity.

Principle
Investigator,
Medical Examiner
Throughout
construction
of the project
If human remains
are determined to
be of Native
American decent
On-site inspection

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Excavations into any areas
of exposed Miocene (and earlier) deposits of the San
Timoteo Formation will be monitored by a qualified
paleontologist consistent with the policies and protocols of the San Bernardino County Museum. The
Paleontologist shall determine the extent and duration of monitoring required and provide a report to the City.

Paleontologist/ City
of Loma Linda
Community
Development
Department
Throughout
construction
of the project
Throughout
grading activities
Review of report

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: In the event that cultural
resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project
outside of the buffered area may continue during this
assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department
(SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1,
regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes
his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

Tribal Monitor Throughout
construction
of the project
In the event precontact and/or
historic-era
resources are
discovered
On-site inspection
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: If significant pre-contact
and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by
CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and
avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall
develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of
which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and
comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist
shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

Tribal Resource
Monitor
Throughout
construction
of the project
In the event
cultural
documents are
prepared
On-site inspection
Mitigation Measure TCR-3: If human remains or funerary
objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Tribal Resource
Monitor
Throughout
construction
of the project
In the event
human remains
are found
On-site inspection

Mitigation Measures No. /
Implementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified Date
/Initials
Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the
duration of the project.

Mitigation Measure TCR-4: The San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department
(SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources
discovered during project implementation and be
provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as
defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural
resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be
created by the archaeologist, in coordination with
SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

Tribal Resource
Monitor
Throughout
construction
of the project
In the event precontact and/or
historic era
cultural resources
are discovered
On-site inspection
Mitigation Measure TCR-5: Any and all archaeological/
cultural documents created as a part of the project
(isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency
and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

Tribal Resource
Monitor
Throughout
construction
of the project
In the event
cultural
documents are
created
Review of
documents
Mitigation Measure TCR-6: The City shall allow for the
presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American
Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground
disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be
encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive
construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic
Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal
Historic Preservation Office.

Tribal Resource
Monitor
Throughout
ground
disturbing
activities
In the event buried
cultural deposits
are encounted
On-site
inspections

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 6
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
Phill Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2023
TO: City Council
SUBJECT: Demands Register

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached list of demands for payment.

Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date _________________

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 7
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
Phill Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2023
TO: City Council
SUBJECT: Minutes of December 13, 2022, and January 10, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the minutes as submitted.

Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date _________________
City of Loma Linda
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of December 13, 2022
A regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Dupper at 7:07pm Tuesday, December 13, 2022.

Councilmen Present: Mayor Phill Dupper
Mayor pro tempore Ron Dailey
Bhavin Jindal
John Lenart
Rhodes Rigsby
Councilman Absent: None
Others Present: City Manager T. Jarb Thaipejr
City Attorney Diane Robbins
Mayor Dupper noted that Councilman Lenart was present, but was in the Council Board room on a business call.

The Pledge of Allegiance and invocation were led by Councilman Rigsby.

Items To Be Added Or Deleted
No items were added or deleted.

Oral Reports/Public Participation - Non-Agenda Items (Limited to 30 minutes; 3 minutes allotted for each speaker)
Milford Harrison thanked the citizens of Loma Linda for the privileges he has had representing the citizens of Loma Linda. On November 8, he was elected for another four-year term as a San Bernardino Valley Water District Board member. He noted that the Board is committed to ensure there is sufficient water for the communities within the region. He thanked his supporters.

Scheduled and Related Items
CC-2022-96 – Public Hearing –Ratification of Certificate of Appropriateness for Precise Plan of Design Application No. P22-004 for the elevations of “The Groves” 51 single-family residential homes located in Planning Area 3-6 of the Groves Specific Plan a. DETERMINE the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, which provides an exemption for residential projects located in a specific plan area where a public agency has already prepared an EIR on a specific plan and that residential project is undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with that specific plan, and;
b. RATIFY Certificate of Appropriateness for Precise Plan of Design No. P22-004, and; c. APPROVE Precise Plan of Design No. P22-004, which includes the architectural styles and configuration of 51 single-family, estate-style homes on 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lots. The 4 architectural styles, consistent with the Specific Plan, will be: Craftsman, Prairie, California Ranch, and Modern Farmhouse. The 22.58 acre vacant site is located in Planning Area 3-6 of The City Council Minutes Page 2
December 13, 2022
Groves Specific Plan, south of Park Ave, north of Mission Rd, and intersected by Bryn Mawr Ave. It’s designated as Special Planning Area “D” within the Historic Mission Overlay District, Zoned Planned Community and Very Low Density Residential. The recommended approvals listed above are based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and the original Mitigation Measures adopted on June 12, 2018.

Councilman Lenart entered the Council Chambers at 7:11pm.

Community Development Director Matarrita presented the report into evidence, reviewing the architectural elevations, floor plans, fencing and landscape designs of the project. She noted that the project was reviewed by Planning Commission on December 7, 2022 with the recommendation to add three conditions which are Conditions 118-120 to the Conditions of Approval. The following are a summary of the conditions:

1. (Condition 118) Provide a minimum of 2 types of fast growing trees that will produce substantial shade along the Zanja Trail, park, perimeter, and parkways. On Mission Road, choose the same types of trees and similar plant palette.

2. (Condition 119) Install natural shade structure with lighting for the mailbox clusters.

3. (Condition 120) Revise the elevations so the siding, such as stone veneer, wraps and continues around the front and side portions of the structure.

In regards to the condition pertaining to the locations of the mailbox clusters, the applicant requested to modify the condition allowing them to work with staff during the Plan Check phase for location that will be appropriately shaded and lighted by shade trees and street lighting. However, the ultimate locations are approved by the United States Postal Service (USPS). She would allow the applicant to respond to the other two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. She concluded that the City is recommending approval of the project per the recommendations as stated on the staff report based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Councilman Jindal inquired to the definition of semi-custom; expressed concern to the exterior color tones; did not believe the development was unique enough for a semi-custom development; wanted to confirm that the parkways in this development will be installed; and received complaints from residents that there are not sufficient trees in this development.

In response, Community Development Matarrita explained semi-custom defined as the majority of the development would be unique with minimal repeated elevations. She stated that the Code requires two trees per property; one in front of the property and one in the parkway.

Discussion ensued pertaining to solar panels and an explanation of the calculation to determine the size and power.

Mayor pro tempore Dailey complemented the developer, stating that they do a good job and provide a good product. He appreciates the decent size of the homes, the exterior colors and accent colors. He asked if any homes have a double door entry and if the development would have an HOA.

Matthew Gevergiz, Project Manager for Lennar Homes, stated that they did consider double doors, but stated there could be maintenance issues. He noted that the single doors are three feet, a little wider and is a better option for the design of the homes. He noted that the project will have an HOA, due to the fact there is no common area, but that there would be CC&R’s. He noted that when they started this project, semi-custom development was on the Specific Plan. He noted that Lennar Homes does not do custom homes. He noted that this development has the largest variety of homes with four (4) different elevations, and, with each elevation, there are three (3) different color schemes. So the result is a more variety of homes to fulfill the custom language. He noted that the plotting of the homes is already set for each lot.

City Council Minutes Page 3
December 13, 2022
He noted that they are not the owners of the development, but are in negotiations. Once that process is complete, they anticipate the models to be built by the summer of 2024 based on the market conditions.

Discussion ensued how the development was initially envisioned as a fully custom development, but through the process, it was downgraded to semi-custom development.

Discussion ensued pertaining to the project’s landscape plans. Councilman Dailey stated that he would like the developer to install a simple landscape design in the rear yard. He believes that would add to the quality of the project. He inquired and was interested on the types of trees being installed. He doesn’t support the idea of installing “fast growing” trees as noted in the condition. He noted fast growing does not mean appropriate trees.

Mr. Gevergiz explained that they will provide landscape in the front yard, but, that they do not, generally, provide rear yard landscape package. It would be up to the homeowners to custom design their rear yard.

He noted that there would be a condition on the CC&R’s where the homeowners is given a timeframe to install the rear yard. In regards to the trees, he noted that they are installing 24-inch box trees per code and that the Specific Plan provides a tree list. They will comply with the proposed tree list within the Specific Plan.

Community Development Director Matarrita explained that the applicant must submit their landscape plan for staff’s review during the plan check process per the Conditions of Approval, City Manager Thaipejr confirmed that City staff will review the proposed trees for the development, because the City will be maintaining the trees. They will look for appropriate trees.

Discussion ensued pertaining to the recommended condition by Planning Commission on the natural shade structure for the cluster mailboxes.

Mr. Gevergiz stated that the US Post Office will approve the location of the cluster mailboxes. He has a concern to the condition (Condition #119) by the Planning Commission for a shade structure for the cluster mailboxes. He noted that the cluster mailbox will be located on private property, on the side yard of the property. He does not want to intrude on the property owners of the property. He noted a shade structure will require maintenance. With no HOA, he said there would be no one responsible for the maintenance. He stated that they would provide shade and lighting with a tree and streetlight nearby.

Councilman Dailey pointed out the mailboxes in his neighborhood got broken into three times in seven months. They tried working with the Post Office, but the timeframe to replace the mailboxes was going to be long. The owners of the neighborhood pitched in and installed an upgraded cluster mailbox. They had no problems. He would like the developer to install a quality, secure mailbox.

Mayor Dupper stated that he trusts staff to work with the applicant on the landscape plan and the selection of trees. He doesn’t feel City Council needs to review the landscape plan.

Mr. Gevergiz stated that he had a concern to the condition (Condition No. 120) recommended by the Planning Commission pertaining to the siding continuing around the side portions of the structure. He explained the walls/fence is built after the homes are built and the locations of the walls are determined by the panels or the visual characteristics. He stated that complying with this condition would be difficult based on the sequencing of how they build the property. He would prefer that there be a specific linear footage or to work with city staff.

Mayor Dupper stated that he is uncomfortable with this condition (Condition No. 120). He noted that the City has been happy with the product of Lennar homes. He noted that the developer is in the business and know what sells. He does not want to overly complicate it. He would rather delete that condition.

City Council Minutes Page 4
December 13, 2022
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to delete Condition No. 120 and allow the applicant work with staff.

Mayor Dupper stated that in regards to Condition No. 118a, he recommended striking out “fast growing” on. In regards to Condition 119, he recommended removing “structure” and the condition was revised to read, “During the Plan Check process, the applicant shall work with City staff to provide appropriate shade and lighting for the mailbox clusters.

There was a consensus by the Council on the recommended changes.

Councilman Lenart left the Council meeting at 8:34pm.

Mayor pro tempore Dailey expressed concerned that there was no rear yard landscape. For these upgraded home development, he believed it should be included and add the cost to the cost of the homes.

Mr. Gevergiz stated that in a similar development in a neighboring city, Lennar Homes offered that option. He said that it was about $15,000 - $20,000 to install landscape for much smaller lots. He pointed out that these are lots are larger, so the cost would be higher. He stated that it is not typically what they offer. In their experience, the owners are not usually adding that option.

The public hearing was opened.

Julie Stocker, 26234 Mission Rd., stated that they own the existing home adjacent to the adobe property.

She read there would be a center median on Mission Rd. She does not support a median on Mission Rd. in front of their home. She noted that she has not received the public notices for this project. She asked how the sidewalks in the development will affect her property.

City Manager Thaipejr stated that the City will install the sidewalks and all the street improvements, but the owners of the three existing properties would have to dedicate the right of way to the City. He stated that without the sidewalk improvements, there will be some issues when it rains. He noted that the median was installed on Mission Rd. to slow down the traffic.

Ms. Stocker had a questions about the zoning of her property; whether the homes behind would be one or two story; and the drainage of water with the new development. She read a condition that the existing property owners are responsible for their own drainage. She is concerned about drainage. She is trying to do the best to protect their property.

City Manager Thaipejr explained the drainage would flow in the northwest direction and the rainfall drainage should remain within the subdivision. He reiterated that he would like to work with the existing property owners to complete the street improvements.

Pete Dangermond welcomed the idea of the street improvements. He commented to Lot C and that they wanted to coordinate to the improvements around the adobe.

Mayor Dupper commented that one of the streets in the development is named Frink Ranch Road Dick Wiley commented on the shading of the cluster mailboxes and appreciated the efforts made to cover the Adobe House for weather protection.

The public hearing is closed.

City Council Minutes Page 5
December 13, 2022
Motion by Rigsby to approve Precise Plan of Design Application No. P22-004 as submitted with the modifications to Condition No. 118 and 119 and to delete Condition No. 120.

Motion failed due to lack of second.

Mayor pro tempore Dailey stated that he would like the item to come back to the Council with the landscape plan.

Councilman Rigsby stated that he supports staff to work with the applicant on the landscape plan based on the comments and concerns expressed by City Council. He added that bringing the landscape plan back to the City Council could delay the purchase of the property.

Councilman Jindal could not second the motion because concerns he had with the designs of the homes.

Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Jindal, to continue Precise Plan of Design Application No. P22- 004 to January 10, 2023; the City Clerk called roll and motion carried unanimously. Lenart absent.

CC-2022-97 - Consent Calendar
Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Jindal to approve the Consent Calendar items as presented; the City Clerk called roll and the Consent Calendar items were approved unanimously.

Lenart absent.

The demands registers dated:
 November 22, 2022, with commercial demands totaling $1,550,985.15 and payroll demands dated November 10, 2022, in the amount of $390,153.93; and  December 13, 2022, with commercial demands totaling $2,253,777.43 and payroll demands dated November 23, 2022, $386,194.83 and December 8, 2022, $367,542.61; Approved the Minutes of October 25 and November 8, 2022, as presented; Accepted for filing the October and November, 2022, Treasurer’s Reports; Accepted for filing the October and November, 2022, Fire Department Reports; Appropriated $293,200.00 from Water Utility Operations Fund Balance and Awarded contracts to Best Drilling and Pump, Inc. of Colton, CA, $380,002.00 for rehabilitation work; to Tetra Tech, Inc. of Irvine, CA, $55,182.00 for inspection and project management services; and authorized a project contingency allocation of $38,000.00;
Appropriated $160,700.00 from Measure I Fund Balance and Awarded contracts to Vance Corporation of Beaumont, CA, $527,780.78 for rehabilitation work on Mountain View Ave., Sun Ave., Rosewood Dr., and Spade Dr.; to Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates, Inc. of San Bernardino, CA, $15,000.00 for survey monument preservation services; and authorized a project contingency allocation of $52,800.00; Approved a supplemental appropriation of $10,000 from General Fund Balance and Approved payment to Shenkman & Hughes, PC, of $30,000 pertaining to the City’s electoral system process change from at-large to by-district elections for City Council;
Awarded contract to K.D. Acoustics of San Bernardino, CA, $22,500.00 for the replacement of acoustic tiles within the City Center and authorized a project contingency allocation of $2,300.00; and City Council Minutes Page 6
December 13, 2022
Accepted as complete and authorized recordation of the Notice of Completion for sewer line repair between the south end of Lawton Ave. and Lawton Ave. intersection with Campus St.in an amount of $19,257.00, Contractor: Sancon Technologies, Inc., of Huntington Beach, CA.

Old Business - None
New Business
CC-2022-98 - City Council 2023 Meeting Schedule
Informational item; no action required.

Reports of Councilmen
Mayor Dupper commended Councilman Jindal for his work on the school district boundaries matter. He noted that they participated on a virtual public hearing. He noted Councilman Jindal did a great job representing the City, but the request from the City was not approved.

Councilman Jindal commended Mayor Dupper for his support of the project and participation in the virtual public hearings. He restated that the City tried to put all of Loma Linda in one uniform school district, but it did not go in the City’s favor.

Due to technical difficulties with the Zoom connection during the public participation section of the agenda, Dick Wiley commented commending the Fire Department for their Parade of Lights program. He congratulated the Fire Department for a wonderful program. He wished City Council and staff a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Reports of Officers
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 pm.

Approved at the meeting of February 14, 2023.

City Clerk
City of Loma Linda
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of January 10, 2023
A regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Dupper at 7:04 pm Tuesday, January 10, 2023.

Councilmen Present: Mayor Phill Dupper
Mayor pro tempore Ron Dailey
Bhavin Jindal
John Lenart
Rhodes Rigsby
Councilman Absent: None
Others Present: City Manager T. Jarb Thaipejr
City Attorney Diane Robbins
The Pledge of Allegiance and invocation were led by Councilman Rigsby.

Councilman Lenart entered the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.

Items To Be Added Or Deleted
City Manager Thaipejr requested approval to add an urgency item to the agenda. He explained the City received TDA Grant from SBCTA for the installation of two bus shelters. The work was completed; however, the notice of completion was not filed being that the installation was installed by staff. The deadline to submit for payment reimbursement was extended to complete this process.

City Attorney Robbins explained that Council must determine the item requires an immediate action and that the need to take an action came to the attention of staff after the posting of the agenda, which is what occurred.

Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Lenart and unanimously carried to add the Notice of Completion for the Bus Stop and Shelters Construction on Barton Rd at California Ave. on the Consent Calendar, Agenda Item No. 7a, for City Council action, based on the findings that the item required immediate action due to the grant deadline; and that the item came to the attention to staff after the posting of the agenda.

Oral Reports/Public Participation - Non-Agenda Items (Limited to 30 minutes; 3 minutes allotted for each speaker)
No public participation upon invitation by the Mayor.

Scheduled and Related Items
CC-2023-01 – Public Hearing –Ratification of Certificate of Appropriateness for Precise Plan of Design Application No. P22-004 for the elevations of “Gold Crest” 51 single-family residential homes located in Planning Area 3-6 of the Groves Specific Plan City Council Minutes Page 2
January 10, 2023
a. DETERMINE the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, which provides an exemption for residential projects located in a specific plan area where a public agency has already prepared an EIR on a specific plan and that residential project is undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with that specific plan, and;
b. RATIFY Certificate of Appropriateness for Precise Plan of Design No. P22-004, and; c. APPROVE Precise Plan of Design No. P22-004, which includes the architectural styles and configuration of 51 single-family, estate-style homes on 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lots. The 4 architectural styles, consistent with the Specific Plan, will be: Craftsman, Prairie, California Ranch, and Modern Farmhouse. The 22.58 acre vacant site is located in Planning Area 3-6 of The Groves Specific Plan, south of Park Ave, north of Mission Rd, and intersected by Bryn Mawr Ave. It’s designated as Special Planning Area “D” within the Historic Mission Overlay District, Zoned Planned Community and Very Low Density Residential. The recommended approvals listed above are based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and the original Mitigation Measures adopted on June 12, 2018.

Community Development Director Matarrita presented the report into evidence, noting Planning Commission approved the project adding three conditions, Conditions 118-120. On December 13, 2022, City Council reviewed the project, amended Conditions 118 & 119, deleted Condition 120, expressed several design concerns and continued the project to this meeting. She noted the applicant made feasible modifications to refine the project based on City Council’s discussion, but pointed out that it would not change the project description or proposed use. She noted the applicant agreed to plant 14 magnolia trees along Citrus Rd. to match the adjacent development; to add two shade producing trees (carrot wood and camphor) along the Zanja Trail; and to add carrot wood vs. pepper trees along Mission Rd., which will match the trees adjacent to the development. This tree selection was based on a recommendation by the Field Maintenance Technician who noted pepper trees are a nuisance and a maintenance liability. She went on to say the applicant also increased the number of trees in the development by reducing the tree spacing from 40 feet to 30 feet providing a denser tree canopy. Based on these modifications, staff recommended deleting Condition 118, which addresses the tree installation. In regards to the mailbox cluster, she noted the applicant upgraded the style and design where they will have a decorative pedestal and cover that is United States Postal Service (USPS) approved and that the USPS will make the final decision on their locations. She concluded noting that all plan modifications will be reviewed during the plan check process and the final grading and preliminary landscape plans will be reviewed by staff.

Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Jindal, to approve Precise Plan of Design Application No. P22-004 to January 10, 2023 as revised; Mayor pro tempore Dailey appreciated the modifications to the mailboxes by the applicant. Community Development Director Matarrita noted that the mailbox design is identified in the USPS website as secured mailboxes.

Councilman Jindal thanked staff and the applicant for taking the Council’s feedback and making the modifications. He clarified that his concerns expressed at the previous meeting were based on resident complaints he has received on an adjacent development. However, he is confident that this development is a better design. He noted that the homes will be in the city long term, so their attention to detail is being viewed in that respect. They want a beautiful project.

The City Clerk called roll and motion carried unanimously.

City Council Minutes Page 3
January 10, 2023
CC-2023-02 - Consent Calendar
Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Lenart to approve the Consent Calendar items as presented;
In regards to Agenda No. 7, Councilman Jindal complimented staff for pursuing an educational opportunity for employees. He hoped the program will expand with other universities.

The City Clerk called roll and motion carried unanimously.

Approved the demands registers dated:
 December 27, 2022, with commercial demands totaling $1,214,993.14 and payroll demands dated December 22, 2022, in the amount of $374,114.89 and December 23, 2022, in the amount of $81,031.46; and
 January 10, 2023, with commercial demands totaling $562,158.23 and payroll demands dated January 5, 2023, $390,840.03;
Accepted for filing the December, 2022, Treasurer’s Reports; Accepted for filing the December, 2022, Fire Department Reports; Adopted Council Bill #R-2023-02 declaring the need for emergency contracting procedures for Barton Road waterline repair, appropriate $28,100 from Water Utility Operations Fund Balance into account no. 4657020-51300, then award contract for emergency waterline repair; RESOLUTION NO 3165

RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACTING PROCEDURES AND AUTHORIZING BARTON ROAD WATERLINE REPAIR.

Adopted Council Bill #R-2023-01 establishing the new salary table for employees effective January 1, 2023, for Fiscal Years 2021-2024;
RESOLUTION NO 3166

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOMA

LINDA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE NEW SALARY TABLE
FOR EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023.

Approved a Memorandum of Understanding to enter into a three-year preferred partnership with California Baptist University (CBU); and
Accepted as complete and authorized recordation of the Notice of Completion for Bus Stop and Shelter Construction on Barton Road at California Avenue in an amount of $20,634.13, Manufacturer: Tolar Manufacturing, of Corona, CA.

Old Business - None
City Council Minutes Page 4
January 10, 2023
New Business
CC-2023-03 - Appropriate $48,500 from Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Grant Fund Balance and Award a contract to Flock Group, Inc. for the installation and monitor of 17 License Plate Readers (LPR) cameras
Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Lenart to appropriate $48,500 from the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Grant Fund Balance and Award a contract to Flock Group, Inc. for the installation and monitor of 17 License Plate Readers (LPR) cameras in amount of $48,450.00;
City Manager Thaipejr presented the report into evidence, stating the City had been working with the Sheriff’s Department to look at options to address the increase in crimes in the city. The Sheriff’s Department recommended the License Plate Readers (LPR) cameras from the Flock Safety System. The City’s existing license plate camera system is outdated and not working properly. He, the Mayor and Lt.

Smith viewed a presentation from Flock Safety System. He believed the technology of this camera system would be beneficial for law enforcement. He added that City of Colton uses this camera system and will install cameras at Barton Rd. and Waterman Ave. Being from the same system, the City would have access to that data. The City is recommending approval of the installation of 17 LPR cameras at the intersections identified in the staff report,
Discussion ensued noting that the north side of Barton Rd. and Waterman Ave. is within the City of San Bernardino.

Mayor Dupper pointed out that the Flock Safety system uses different technology. He stated that the system does not identify the license plate numbers, but uses AI software to identify the details of the vehicles, which offers more value and targets the specific crime and criminal for law enforcement. He noted the data is destroyed every 30 days, with some exceptions, which is sufficient time for the Sheriff’s Department to follow up. He also noted the Sheriff’s Department would have direct access to the data.

Jesse Mund, Flock Group, Inc., explained that their system does not connect to any third party database to collect personal information. However, he stated that their system is connected to the California Stolen Vehicle System registry which is published by the California DOJ and is updated every 6 hours. Their system will notify law enforcement if a felony, wanted vehicle, amber or silver alert vehicle passes their cameras. They provide the data, and law enforcement does their own database check. With the number of government and law enforcement agencies who use their LPR camera system in California, he noted it will add value to Loma Linda and its law enforcement.

City Manager explained that the equipment would be leased with year to year contract; that installation cost would be $350 per camera; and that the hardware and software maintenance for each camera would be $2,500 per year. He pointed out that this program would be funded through the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Grant fund.

Mayor Dupper asked the maker of the motion if he would be amenable to modify the motion allow the City Manager flexibility to modify the contract amount should additional camera be needed. Both the maker and the second of the motion concurred.

Motion to amend by Rigsby, seconded by Lenart to add to the motion that the City Manager be given flexibility to modify the contract amount should additional cameras be needed. The City Clerk called roll and motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Dupper commended Lt. Kaysie Smith for her hard work and efforts spearheading this project.

City Council Minutes Page 5
January 10, 2023
CC-2023-04 - Accept with regret the resignation of Wesley James from the Historic Commission and declare vacancy and direct staff to post a Notice of Vacancy Motion by Rigsby, seconded by Lenart to accept the resignation by Wesley James, to declare vacancy and direct staff to post a Notice of Vacancy. The City Clerk called roll and motion carried unanimously.

CC-2023-04 - SCAG Delegate/Alternate for Annual General Assembly Business Meeting May 4-5, 2023, Palm Desert, CA – JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa Following discussion, Councilman Jindal volunteered to be the city’s SCAG Delegate. City Manager Thaipejr stated that he would fill in as the alternate if needed. Mayor Dupper stated he would check his availability.

Reports of Councilmen - None
Reports of Officers
CC-2023-05 - Munis Utility Billing System PowerPoint Presentation Finance Director Fabela provided a presentation of the new Munis Utility Billing System that offers a customer portal for customers to view accounts, monthly bills, water usage and option to pay bills. She explained that customers must go online to register to access the program. She demonstrated the steps to register. She noted that a number of residents have already registered with the program. She concluded by pointing out the new format of customer bills which provides more detail of fees.

Public Participation on Non Agenda Items
Dick Wiley pointed out a couple of upkeep matters pertaining to the Frink House. City Manager stated that Mr. Dangermond had been in contact with Highpointe Communities, who are the owners of the property.

The meeting adjourned at 8:16 pm.

Approved at the meeting of February 14, 2023.

City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 8
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
Phill Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Sonia Fabela, Finance Director/City Treasurer
VIA: T. Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager
SUBJECT: January 2023 Treasurer’s Report

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive the report for filing.

Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date _________________

DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS

CITY - BANK OF AMERICA - MAIN CHECKING ACCOUNT 1,672,848.41 $ Outstanding Checks as of month-end (291,191.78)
CITY - MAIN CHECKING ACCOUNT AVAILABLE BALANCE 1,381,656.63 $ BANK OF AMERICA - PAYROLL $ 360,361.07
HOUSING AUTHORITY - BANK OF AMERICA - CHECKING ACCOUNT 64,291.03 Outstanding Checks as of month-end -
HOUSING AUTHORITY - CHECKING ACCOUNT AVAILABLE BALANCE 64,291.03 $ SUCCESSOR AGENCY - BANK OF AMERICA - CHECKING ACCOUNT 112,038.19 Outstanding Checks as of month-end -
SUCCESSOR AGENCY - CHECKING ACCOUNT AVAILABLE BALANCE 112,038.19 $ DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS - TOTAL $ 1,918,346.92
YIELD

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
CITY 2.425% $ 54,318,824.65
CITY - Former RDA Bond Proceeds 2.425% 1,193,362.58
CITY -Total 55,512,187.23
SUCCESSOR RDA 2.425% 1,351,854.23
HOUSING AUTHORITY 2.425% 1,318,895.57
INVESTMENTS TOTALS $ 58,182,937.03

OTHER CASH

IMPREST ACCOUNT $ 500.00
CASH ON HAND 1,350.00
OTHER CASH TOTAL $ 1,850.00

CASH AND INVESTMENTS - GRAND TOTAL 60,103,133.95
PREVIOUS MONTH 56,939,189.95
.

CHANGE +/(-) $ 3,163,944.00
All investments are in accordance with the City Investment Policy, and as such, sufficient funds are available to meet the cash flow requirements of Loma Linda, including the next thirty days' obligations.

Treasurer
January 2023

CITY OF LOMA LINDA

COMPOSITION OF CASH

INVESTMENTS
-
10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 30,000,000.00 40,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 60,000,000.00 70,000,000.00 1/22 2/22 3/22 4/22 5/22 6/22 7/22 8/22 9/22 10/22 11/22 12/22 1/23

CITY OF LOMA LINDA
MONTHLY TREASURER'S REPORT 1/22-1/23

CITY, SUCCESSOR RDA & HA - TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE CITY- FORMER RDA BOND PROCEEDS BASELINE

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 9

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 10
Phill Dupper, Mayor City of Loma Linda
Official Report
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2023
City Council
Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
TO: Date --------
FROM: Kyle MacGavin, Information Systems Analyst Ill (Through Channels) /6( __ ;y VIA:

SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION
T. Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager
Request to award contract for the replacements of City's Storage Area Network (SAN)
It is recommended that City Council award CDW-G the contract to replace the City's SAN (Storage Area Network) system.

BACKGROUND
The City's current SAN is nearing a decade old and is hitting its end of life later this year. The SAN is the backbone of our servers, and the current SAN is becoming increasingly unstable and will no longer be supported by the manufacturer later this year. The replacement device will provide stable hardware for city use, also for all citizens, customers, and vendors who interact with our servers. The replacement SAN is capable of the new and current industry standards, and will provide ample data storage for the city's needs for years to come.

ANALYSIS:

In lieu of an Request For Proposal, the competitive contract pricing service Sourcewell was used to get the best pricing for this device amongst hundreds of vendors. The best pricing was received from CDW-G, a company we have a long standing relationship with, for a device from the manufacturer "Netapp" at the price of $52,489,93. Based upon the competitive contract pricing and the capabilities of the proposed SAN, it is recommended that the contract be awarded to CDW-G.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Funding is available from city wide fund balance 58845

ATTACHMENT
A. Product Proposal

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 11
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: T. Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager
Phillip Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date
SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles, Equipment, and Miscellaneous Items

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council declare the attached list of vehicles, equipment and miscellaneous items surplus and authorize the items be appropriately disposed and the remaining items auctioned off as surplus.

BACKGROUND
The attached list of vehicles, equipment and miscellaneous items are no longer used in the normal operations of the City. These items have become a maintenance liability rather than an asset due to the limited useful life and present worth of each item.

ANALYSIS
Staff has researched and will have the items auctioned through an auction company.

FINANICIAL IMPACT
Income from auctioned items not determined at this time.

Attachment: Proposed Surplus List
\\CLL�SV�FILE\Public Works\Public Works Admin\StaffReports\Declare Surplus Property and Dispose 2023.doc

EQUIPMENT DISPOSITION FORM
(This form is to be completed upon the disposition of fixed assets, with the exception of equipment for surplus) Date of Disposition:

Department: Public Works and Fire I Division: Parks, Streets, Water, Facilities & Sr Ctr Justification for Disposition: unworkable, no lonqer used in the normal operations of the City and/or have become a maintenance liability
Authorized Siqnature
Item Asset
# Taa#
1 None
2 None
3 2109
4 None
5 None
6 None
7 1659
8 None
9 None
10 None
11 None
12 None
13 None
14 199
15 None
16 None
17 1352
18 2206
19 1739
20 1846
21 None
Check One:

X Sold
Serial #/City ID #
1 FMFU 16589LA00424
1FTRW14W75KB577 42
1FTRW08L43KA21723
S69311005230/E-706
E04111003223/E-741
CA722152
None
No Serial #/948564
7416/E-250
160/E-249
A04385
PO186-1074
255294
587034/E-320
460694
504542
Description
2009 Ford Expedition, Miles: 162,739 (Fire)
2005 Ford F150, 4x4, Miles: 281,000 (PW -Water)
2003 Ford F-150, 4x4, Miles: 98,270 (Fire)
Echo HCA-265, long reach hedge trimmer (PW -
Parks)
Echo PPT-266, Pole Saw Pruner (PW - Parks)
Porta Potty Trailer, Towable Porta Potty (PW -
Streets)
Biq Tex Trailer, 6x10 Stake Bed Trailer (PW)
Valley EZ Dumper, 5x8 Utility Trailer, City ID:
(PW-Water)
Jack Hammer NO29321 (PW)
Jack Hammer 7755711 (PW)
Husqvarna, Weed Whip (PW)
Federal Signal, Overhead Light Bar (Fire)
Federal Sional, Overhead Lioht Bar (Fire)
Landa RHW3-70021 D, Pressure Washer (PW)
Echo PB400E, Power Blower (PW)
Echo PB46HT, Power Blower (PW)
Gludak/UDSEC, Locator 5600 (PW)
Atlas Copco 120, Vibratory Powder Puff (PW)
OCE 7056, Large Toner/Printer
Hewlett Packard DesignJet 3500CP, Large
Toner/Printer
Fleetwood Demo Cart w/buffet ranoe (Facilities)
22 None 160 Chairs (stackable) (Facilities & Senior Center) Other, Please explain
Distribution: Original - Finance; Copy - Relinquishing Department 12/03 CITY OF LOMA LINDA Attachment IV

ASSET DISPOSITION FORM
(This form to be completed upon the disposition of capital assets, with the exception of exception of equip, for surplus) by means of:

Public Auction
Sealed Bid
Selling for Scrap
Negotiated Sale
Sold for:

Traded for:

Vendor Name:

Traded for:

Department:

Transferred:

Department:
------------------- $0.00
Proceeds Returned to Fund: ----
---------------(Other Asset)
_____________ (Other Dept. Asset)
_____________ (Asset)

EQUIPMENT DISPOSITION FORM
(This form is to be completed upon the disposition of fixed assets, with the exception of equipment for surplus) Date of Disposition: 2-14-23
Department INFORMATION SYSTEMS Division_____________________________ Justification for Disposition: Equipment is nonfunctioning or obsolete Authorized Signature ________________________________________________________ Item
#
Asset Tag
#
Serial #
Description
1 03118 GD1VQW1 Dell Precision T5600 (Desktop)
2 - 8848047 Sony Audio/Video Control Center (Black)
3 - G3CXKK1 Dell Precision T5400 (Desktop)
4 - CN-OHC317-71618-55M-AAY1 Dell Flat Panel Monitor
5 - - Dell Flat Panel Monitor
6 02303 JZC4VC1 Dell OptiPlex 745 (SFF)
7 02473 CNUOO44XLL HP Smart Board Laptop
8 02280 CNF6270NH3 HP Compaq
9 03329 F4GSP72 Dell Laptop
10 03199 MXL3110Y88 HP Compaq Pro 6300 (SFF)
11 03229 MXL4321HGQ HP EliteDesk 800 G1 (SFF)
12 03295 MXL5322T65 HP EliteDesk 800 G1 (SFF)
13 03128 JY53JQ1 Dell Optiplex 990 (SFF)
14 03122 3W22QN1 Dell Optiplex 990 (SFF)
15 - A1R025102239 ViewSonic VG700b
16 03124 H9S1HQ1 Dell Optiplex 990 (SFF)
17 - CN11020554 HP Digital Sender 9200c
18 - MY1131802R HP DeskJet 952C
19 - CNB0311069 HP Color Sphere
20 - - Dell Flat Panel Monitor
21 - - 13 tan phones
22 - - 4 tan speakers
23 - - 4 keyboards
24 - - 1 Ethernet switch
25 - - 2 HDDs
26 - 77B92541 Dell PowerEdge 2650
27 - - 1 Mouse
28 S0234232Z AT-9812T Multi-Layer Gigabit Switch
29 03141 A03630s061000008 Allied Telesyn x900-24XT-N QoS Switch 30 - S0AN4145W Allied Telesyn Rapier 24i Layer 3 Fast Internet Switch
31 S05V3052S Allied Telesyn Rapier 24i Layer 3 Fast Internet Switch
32 - M04366803556088D02 PowerDsine 6024
33 - I042666803005098d01 PowerDsine 6024
34 - 3618GN00501 MGE UPS Systems Topaz S3
35 - 018184 Galleon Systems LTD
36 03263 5CG44030JX HP ProBook 650 G1
37 - S0CE4389AB Allied Telesyn Rapier 24i Layer 3 Fast Internet Switch
38 - A02408S060200006 C Allied Telesis AT-TN117-A Datasheet 39 - A02408S060200030 iMAPTM GE8 (AT-TN-117) 8-Port GbE Service and Aggregation Channel Unit
40 - 0056224040900065 A1 Allied Telesis AT-TN-301-A
41 - A02408S060200020 C iMAPTM GE8 (AT-TN-117) 8-Port GbE Service and Aggregation Channel Unit
42 - 0056224040900056 A1 Allied Telesis AT-TN-301-A
43 - A01830S060200021 E Allied Telesis AT-TN-109-A 100BASE-FX SVR

MOD VAUCAAYGTA
44 - A01830S060200060 E Allied Telesis AT-TN-109-A 100BASE-FX SVR

MOD VAUCAAYGTA
45 - A01830S060100002 E Allied Telesis AT-TN-109-A 100BASE-FX SVR

MOD VAUCAAYGTA
46 - A01830S060200088 E Allied Telesis AT-TN-109-A 100BASE-FX SVR

MOD VAUCAAYGTA
47 - A01830S060200100 E Allied Telesis AT-TN-109-A 100BASE-FX SVR

MOD VAUCAAYGTA
48 - A02042S041200037 A7 ALLIED TELESYN - AT-TN-E001 - FAN &

CONTROLLER MOD
49 3189 BLKB23001323 InFocus IN2124 (Projector for EOC) 50 3168 24JC072501FCA Shoretel SG-24
51 3215 24CM0527007034 Shoretel SG-24
52 3218 T1KF13112E8E33 Shoretel ST002
53 3216 S90F13132E91E2 Shoretel SG-90
54 3217 S90F13132E9196 Shoretel SG-90
55 X4EQ163162 EPSON ET-3750 Printer
56 356963035169343 Iphone 5s
57 356963035384512 Iphone 5s
58 356963034770349 Iphone 5s
59 356963065169608 Iphone 5s
60 356964060502579 Iphone 5s
61 356963064770059 Iphone 5s
62 352008068904207 Iphone 5s
63 359483089051549 Iphone 6s
64 359483087517467 Iphone 6s
65 359487086162340 Iphone 6s
66 350166284902413 Samsung
67 353010098678958 Iphone 8 plus
68 353220107749316 Iphone 8
Check One:
_____Sold (Please attach supporting documentation.)
_____Lost (Please include complete description of circumstances surrounding loss.) _____Donated to outside organization (Please attach supporting documentation.) _____Traded In (Please attach supporting documentation.) _____Reassigned for use as source of parts
_____Stolen (Please attach police report or complete description of circumstances.) _X___Destroyed (Please include complete description of circumstances.) Other, Please explain E-WASTE
Distribution: Original - Finance; Copy - Relinquishing Department 12/03

CITY OF LOMA LINDA
Sold for: $0.00
by means of:
(X) box
Public Auction
Sealed Bid
Selling for Scrap
Negotiated Sale
Proceeds Returned to Fund:

Traded for: (Other Asset)
Vendor Name:

Traded for: (Other Dept. Asset)
Department:

Transferred: (Asset)
Department:

Attachment IV

ASSET DISPOSITION FORM
(This form to be completed upon the disposition of capital assets, with the exception of exception of equip. for surplus)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 12

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 13

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 14

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 15

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 16

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 17
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:

TO:

FROM:

VIA:

SUBJECT:

February 14, 2023
City Council
Lynette Arreola, City Cler�
T. Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager
Committee Appointments:
a. Budget Committee
Phillip Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date _______ _
b. Parks, Recreation and Beautification Committee
c. Personnel Board

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appoint members to the following committees and board per the noted member seats:
• Budget Committee (5 member seats)
• Parks, Recreation and Beautification Committee (5 member seats) • Personnel Board (3 member seats)

BACKGROUND
The member terms for six Board, Commission and Committees expired between the periods of 2019- 2022.

On August 9, 2022, the City Council declared the vacancies and directed the City Clerk to post vacancy notices for appointments that was scheduled November 8, 2022.

On November 8, 2022, the City Council took several actions. They reduced membership size of four Boards and Committees to five (5) members, two of those being the Parks Recreation and Beautification Committee and the Budget Committee; directed City Clerk to re-post a vacancy notice for the Personnel Board since insufficient number of applications were received to fill the three vacant seats; and appointed members to two committees and one commission.

The Chairman for the Parks, Recreation and Beautification Committee and the Personnel Board requested to review the member applications with City Staff and submit a recommendation to City Council.

The City Council supported the request.

ANALYSIS
The City received five (5) member applications for the Budget Committee, six (6) member applications for the Parks, Recreation and Beautification Committee, and six (6) member applications for the Personnel Board.

Reappointed members will continue their term from time term expired. New member appointments must be assigned a member term.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
None.

FINANCIAL IMP ACT
None.

BUDGET COMMITTEE
The Committee reviews the proposals of City staff and prepares recommendations to the City Council of how best to allocate the limited resources of the City to the various municipal services.

The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer are the City's staff liaison members, although all Depaitment Heads participate.

Member Size:

Te1m:

Meeting Schedule:

Mary Lynn Cook
Kevin Fischer
Jay Gallant
Verne Miller
Gai·y Nelson
Krnt Swigart
Jim Walling
Five (Reduced from seven by City Council on Nov. 8, 2022) Four yeai·s
As needed basis, Frequent during the months of May and June Term Exp. June 2020
Te1m Exp. June 2022
Term Exp June 2020
Te1m Exp. June 2019
Term Exp. June 2019
Te1m Exp. June 2019
Term Exp. June 2019
Reapplied
Reapplied
Reapplied
Reapplied
New Term Exp. June 30, 2026
New Term Exp. June 30, 2024
New Term Exp. June 30, 2023
New Term Exp. June 30, 2023
Received five applications:

1. Craig Chernos

2. Kevin Fischer

3. Jay Gallant

4. Gary Nelson

5. Krnt Swigart

PARKS, RECREATION & BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
The Committee reviews the City's present Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan for recommending possible changes to the City Council; prepares recommendations pertaining to upgrading existing parks, acquiring additional park land, development of a trails system, the application of various grant moneys and establishing the parameters of a beautification program. The Director of Public Works is the City's liaison staff member.

Member Size:

Te1m:

Five (Reduced from six by City Council on Nov. 8, 2022) Three yem·s
Bi-monthly on the 2
nd Meeting Schedule: Monday
Robert Alfaro
Valerie Gallant
Bernadine Irwin
Janet Razzouk
Kmt Swigmt
Richard Wiley
Term Exp. July 2021
Term Exp. July 2021
Term Exp. June 2021
Te1m Exp. July 2021
Term Exp. July 2021
Term Exp. July 2020
Received six applications/resume:

I . Valerie Gallant

2. Bernardine Irwin

3. Janet Razzouk

4. Kmt Swigmt

5. Richm·d Wiley

6. Xi Zhang
Reapplied
Reapplied
Reapplied
Reapplied
Reapplied
New Term Exp. July 1, 2024
Removed October 10, 2022
New Term Exp. July 1, 2024
New Term Exp. June 30, 2024
New Term Exp. July 1, 2026

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET

ADDED URGENCY ITEM

NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 17A
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
Phill Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: T Jarb Thaipejr, City Manager
SUBJECT: Urgency Item - Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Inland Valley Development Agency Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council:
1) Make a finding that there is an immediate need to take action; and 2) Determine that the need to take action came to the attention to the City after the posting of the agenda; and
3) Approve Amendment No. 2 of the Inland Valley Development Agency Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.

BACKGROUND
The Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) Joint Exercise of Powers agreement establishes certain officers which are elected by a majority vote of the board on a biennial basis. Presently, the leadership structure incudes two (2) IVDA Co-chairpersons and a Vice-Chairperson. It has been noted that the CoChairperson role is somewhat unique in special district organizations. Most special districts operate with a Chair/Vice Chair role or a President/Vice President role.

Over the years, IVDA Board members inquired about changing the IVDA’s officer structure to a more typical Chair/Vice Chair position. The officer positions are contained in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, and, therefore, require an amendment to the Agreement to change the officer positions, which prompted the delay. The current IVDA Board decided to make the change in the officer structure.

There is currently a vacancy of the Vice-Chairperson position. Pursuant to the IVDA election procedures, when there is a vacancy of an officer position, the IVDA Board shall at the next regularly scheduled meeting conduct an election for a successor to such office for the unexpired term. That is scheduled to occur at their March 2023 meeting.

ANALYSIS
Amendment No.2 will make the following changes to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement:
1) Update the titles of Board officers from Two (2) Co-Chairpersons and a Vice-Chairperson to a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and a Secretary; and
2) Change the date for the biennial election of officers from the first regular meeting of the Board in the Fiscal Year commencing in an even numbered calendar year (typically July) to the first regular meeting of the Board held in an odd numbered calendar year (typically January).

Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date
In order for Amendment No.2 to be effective it will need to be approved by all of the IVDA Members consisting of the City of Loma Linda, City of San Bernardino, City of Colton and County of San Bernardino.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.

Attachments:

A. Agreement
AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
(INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
This Amendment No. 2 ("Amendment No. 2") is to that certain Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ("Amended JPA") dated for convenience as of _________ _ ("Approval Date"), by and among the City of San Bernardino, the City Colton, the City of Loma Linda, and the County of San Bernardino (the "Members"). The Members agree as follows:

1. Purpose of Amendment.

A change has been deemed desirable to be made to certain provisions of the Amended JP A, which requires certain clarifications and a minor modifications in order to reflect the agreement of the Members as of the date of this Amendment No. 2. Except as specifically amended herein, the terms and conditions of the Amended JP A and the Amendment No. 1 to the Amended JP A ("Amendment No. 1 ") remain in full force and effect, except as to the extent necessary to conform to the amendments contained herein.

2. Terms.

The terms used herein, unless otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings as in the Amended JPA and Amendment No. 1. References herein to "Section" are to sections of the Amended JP A.

3. Amendment to Section 3.01.

Section 3.01 of the Amended JPA is amended to read as follows:

Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary and Additional Officers. The Board shall during the first regular meeting of the Board held in an odd numbered calendar year elect one person to be Chairperson, one person to be Vice-Chairperson, and one person to be Secretary from among the Board Members for a term of two (2) years commencing as of their election as officers at such Board meeting. The Board shall appoint such additional officers and shall employ such additional employees and assistants as may be appropriate, including but not limited to, a general manager and counsel. The officers shall perform the duties normal to said offices; and (a) The Chairperson, or such other official, officer or person as may be designated by the Board, shall execute all contracts on behalf of the Agency, and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board;
(b) the Vice-Chairperson shall act, execute contracts and perform all of the Chairman's duties in absence of the Chairman; and
- 1 -
February 14, 2023
( c) the Secretary shall attest to the execution of all contracts executed by Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or other such official, officer or person as may be designated by the Board, on behalf of the Agency, perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board and cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to the Act.

4. Effective Date. This Amendment No. 2 shall be deemed effective and shall deemed effective and shall be dated as of the date latest in time when all Members have approved this Amendment No. 2 by official action of the respective legislative bodies.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed and attested by their proper officials thereunder duly authorized and their official seal to be hereto affixed, on the day and year set opposite the name of each of the parties. (Signatures are on the following pages.)
- 2 -
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
(SEAL)
ATTEST:

City Clerk
City Attorney

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
By: _____________ _
Title: --------------
Dated: --------------
- 3 -
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
(SEAL)
ATTEST:

City Clerk
City Attorney

CITY OF COLTON, CALIFORNIA
By: _____________ _
Title: --------------
Dated: --------------
- 4 -
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
(SEAL)
ATTEST:

City Clerk
City Attorney

CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA
By: _____________ _
Title: --------------
Dated: --------------
- 5 -
Mayor
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
(SEAL)
ATTEST:

County Clerk
County Counsel

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By: _____________ _
Title: --------------
Dated: --------------
- 6 -

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PACKET
AGENDA ITEM NO 18
City of Loma Linda
Official Report
Phill Dupper, Mayor
Ronald Dailey, Mayor pro tempore
Rhodes Rigsby, Councilman
John Lenart, Councilman
Bhavin Jindal, Councilman
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: February 14, 2022
TO: City Council
FROM:

SUBJECT:

Lorena Matarrita, Community Development Department
Tom Ingalls, Fire Department
Digital Video and Social Media Discussion (PowerPoint Presentation)

RECOMMENDATION
No action required.

Approved/Continued/Denied
By City Council
Date