Redlands City Council
October 4, 2022

No mitigation is required. However, the Project would
substantially conform with PMM REC-1. The Project would provide 23,476 SF of common open space and would be
compliant with open space requirements. The Project applicant would be responsible for meeting any park fee requirements pursuant to the Quimby Act and in accordance with Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.32.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
99 Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project i. Increasing the accessibility to natural areas for outdoor recreation ii. Utilizing “green” development techniques
iii. Promoting water-efficient land use and development iv. Encouraging multiple uses, such as the joint use of schools v. Including trail systems and trail segments in General Plan recreation standards
Impact REC-2: Result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of
new or physically altered park
facilities, need for new or
physically altered park facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, or other
performance objectives. Include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment.

See PMM REC-1, PMM AQ-2, and PMM NOISE-1. No mitigation is required. The Project would provide 23,476 SF of common open space. These recreational amenities
include multiple courtyards, a pool, and spa. While the Project does include recreational facilities, impacts related to construction of this facility are analyzed throughout this SCEA and would not result in an adverse environmental impact.

Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to pay
Developer Impact Fees to offset any impacts to recreational facilities.

Transportation, Traffic, and Safety
Impact TRA-1: Conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities.

No mitigation is required. No mitigation is required.

Impact TRA-2: Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3(b).

PMM-TRA-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to transportation-related impacts. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
• Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies should be incorporated into individual land use and transportation projects and No mitigation is required as Project impacts would be less than significant. However, the Project would substantially conform with PMM-TRA-1. Due to the Project’s location in a TPA, impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Project would include sidewalks along all street frontages. Additionally, the Project would include bike lockers to promote bike use. Furthermore, the Project would SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
100
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project plans, as part of the planning process. Local agencies should incorporate strategies identified in the Federal Highway Administration’s publication:

Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (August 2012) into the planning process (FHWA 2012). For example, the following strategies may be included to encourage use of transit and non-motorized modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled on the region’s roadways:
o include TDM mitigation requirements for new developments; o incorporate supporting infrastructure for non-motorized modes, such as, bike lanes, secure bike parking, sidewalks, and crosswalks;
o provide incentives to use alternative modes and reduce driving, such as, universal transit passes, road and parking pricing; o implement parking management programs, such as parking cash-out, priority parking for carpools and vanpools;
o develop TDM-specific performance measures to evaluate project-specific and systemwide performance;
o incorporate TDM performance measures in the decision-making process for identifying transportation investments;
o implement data collection programs for TDM to determine the effectiveness of certain strategies and to measure success over time; and
o set aside funding for TDM initiatives.
o The increase in per capita VMT on facilities experiencing LOS F represents a significant impact compared to existing conditions.

To assess whether implementation of these specific mitigation strategies would result in measurable traffic congestion reductions, implementing actions may need to be further refined within the overall parameters of the proposed Plan and
matched to local conditions in any subsequent project-level environmental analysis.
provide convenient and direct pedestrian access to the nearby Downtown train station less than 0.5-mile to the north.

Impact TRA-3: Substantially
increase hazards due to geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).

No mitigation is required. No mitigation is required.

Impact TR-4: Result in inadequate
emergency access.

PMM TRA-2: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can The Project’s impacts would be less than significant as a result of implementation of regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
101
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project Impact WF-1: Substantially impair
an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan
and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects which may substantially impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
• Prior to construction, project implementation agencies can and should ensure that all necessary local and state road and railroad encroachment permits are obtained. The project implementation agency can and should also comply with all applicable conditions of approval. As deemed necessary by the governing jurisdiction, the road encroachment permits may require the contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction.

Traffic control plans can and should include the following requirements:
o Identification of all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., directional drilling or night construction) would be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow. o Development of circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. This may include the use of signing and flagging to guide vehicles through and/or around the
construction zone.
o Scheduling of truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours.
o Limiting of lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible. o Usage of haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible.
o Inclusion of detours for bicycles and pedestrians in all areas potentially affected by project construction.
o Installation of traffic control devices as specified in the California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.
o Development and implementation of access plans for highly sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals, and schools. The access plans would be developed with the facility owner or administrator. To minimize disruption of emergency vehicle access, affected jurisdictions can and should be asked to identify detours for emergency vehicles, which will then be posted by the contractor. Notify in advance the facility owner or operator of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations of detours and lane closures.
the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because emergency access to the site would be provided by the existing street system, and the Project is designed and would be constructed in accordance with City of Redlands requirements to ensure proper emergency access. In addition, the Applicant will submit a parking and driveway plan for review by the City of Redlands staff and the Redlands Fire Department to ensure compliance with all applicable coderequired site access and circulation requirements as well as code-required emergency access.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
102
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project o Storage of construction materials only in designated areas. o Coordination with local transit agencies for temporary relocation of routes or bus stops in work zones, as necessary. o Ensure the rapid repair of transportation infrastructure in the event of an emergency through cooperation among public
agencies and by identifying critical infrastructure needs necessary for: a) emergency responders to enter the region, b) evacuation of affected facilities, and c) restoration of utilities. o Enhance emergency preparedness awareness among public agencies and with the public at large.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource
defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 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
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.

See PMM CULT-1.

PMM TCR-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria
b) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; protecting the traditional use of the resource; and protecting the confidentiality of the resource;
c) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places; and protecting the resource.

The Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure.

In compliance with AB 52 requirements, on April 8, 2022, the City sent letters to 5 Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity.

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians consulted with the City via email regarding the proposed Project. The San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians stated that the Project is within Serrano ancestral territory; however, due to the nature of the Project site, the Tribe does not have any concerns with the Project’s implementation.

Mitigation Measures TCR-1 has been included to require a Monitoring and Treatment Plan and Native American
monitoring of excavation and grading activities should any cultural resources be discovered during Project construction activities.

Solid Waste
Impact USSW-1: Generate solid
waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
PMM USSW-2: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce the generation of solid waste, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:

The Project’s impacts would be less than significant as a result of the implementation of regulatory requirements.

Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because the Project would comply with the City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 15.16, which
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
103
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.

Impact USSW-2: Comply with
federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.

Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24) into project design including, but not limited to the following:
a) Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities. b) Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D diversion. c) Source reduction through (1) use of materials that are more durable and easier to repair and maintain, (2) design to generate less scrap material through dimensional planning, (3) increased recycled content, (4) use of reclaimed materials, and (5) use of structural materials in a dual role as finish material (e.g., stained concrete flooring, unfinished ceilings, etc.).
d) Reuse of existing structure and shell in renovation projects. e) Development of indoor recycling program and space.
f) Discourage the siting of new landfills unless all other waste reduction and prevention actions have been fully explored. If landfill siting or expansion is necessary, site landfills with an adequate landfill-owned, undeveloped land buffer to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the landfill in neighboring communities.
g) Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG region during the construction and implementation of a project. Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and Connect SoCal policies can and should be required. h) Encourage waste reduction goals and practices and look for opportunities for voluntary actions to exceed the 80 percent waste diversion target. i) Encourage the development of local markets for waste prevention, reduction, and recycling practices by supporting recycled content and green procurement policies, as well as other waste prevention, reduction and recycling practices. j) Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.
k) Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts.
requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 13.66.040, Construction and Demolition Recycling Requirements, which requires that no demolition permit or building permit shall be issued for any development activity subject to this chapter unless the construction and demolition recycling plan has been approved by the Facilities and Community Services Director.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
104
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project l) Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and commercial projects.
m) Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
n) Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling services.

Wastewater
Impact USWW-1: Require or result
in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded wastewater
treatment or storm drainage
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.

See PMM HYD-1.

PMM USWW-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects on utilities and service systems, particularly for construction of wastewater facilities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
• During the design and CEQA review of individual future projects, implementing agencies and projects sponsors shall determine whether sufficient wastewater capacity exists for the proposed projects. There CEQA determinations must ensure that the proposed development can be served by its existing or planned treatment capacity. If adequate capacity does not exist, project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant service provider to ensure that adequate public services and utilities could accommodate the increased demand, and if not, infrastructure improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities.

The Project’s impacts would be less than significant as a result of implementation of regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because most wastewater generated by sewered
development within the Planning Area is treated at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility treats approximately 6 million gallons per day (mgd) with a capacity of 9.5 mgd. As
discussed in Section 6.3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would connect to existing water, wastewater, and storm drainage facilities, and would not require new or expanded wastewater treatment or storm drainage facilities.

Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to pay
Developer Impact Fees to offset any impacts to existing wastewater facilities.

Impact USWW-2: 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
See PMM UWW-1. The Project’s impacts would be less than significant as a result of implementation of regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because most wastewater generated by sewered
development within the Planning Area is treated at the
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Redlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility treats approximately 6 million gallons per day (mgd) with a capacity of 9.5 mgd. As
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
105
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
discussed in Section 6.3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would generate approximately 17,645 gpd of
wastewater per day. All new residential development that connects to the system is required to pay its applicable fairshare Development Impact Fee(s). As such, the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility would have adequate
capacity to serve the Project.

Water Supply
Impact USWS-1: Require or result
in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects.

PMM USSW-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to ensure sufficient water supplies, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to drought-tolerant native landscape plantings, using weather-based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use, and installing related water pricing incentives. b) Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and should be implemented where feasible.
c) Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets, waterefficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection and repair. d) For projects located in an area with existing reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure and excess reclaimed water capacity, use reclaimed water for nonpotable uses, especially landscape irrigation. For projects in a location planned for future reclaimed water service, projects should install dual plumbing systems in anticipation of future use. Large developments could treat wastewater onsite to tertiary standards and use it for non-potable uses onsite The Project’s impacts would be less than significant as a result of implementation of regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because the Project would connect to the existing water lines in the surrounding streets. The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this SCEA. Additionally, the new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the
proposed residences and landscaping through
plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water.

Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to pay
Developer Impact Fees to offset any impacts to existing water facilities.

Impact USWS-2: Have sufficient
water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple
dry years.

See PMM USWS-1. The Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because the City has determined that the projected water supply available during normal, single-dry water years as included in the 25-year projection contained in its adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan can
accommodate the projected water demand associated with
the Project, in addition to the existing and planned future SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
106
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project development. Additionally, the Project would have a demand of 31.39 acre-feet per year, which is within the projected water demands and supplies as analyzed in the UWMP. In
addition, all new residential development that connects to the system is required to pay its applicable fair-share
Development Impact Fee(s).

Wildfire
Impact WF-2: 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.

Impact HAZ-7: Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires.

PMM WF-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to wildfire risk, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Launch fire prevention education for local cities and counties such that local fire agencies, homeowners, as well as commercial and industrial businesses are aware of potential sources of fire ignition and the related procedures to curb or lessen any activities that might initiate fire ignition.
b) Ensure structures in high fire risk areas are built to current state and federal standards which serve to greatly increase the chances the structure will survive a wildfire and also allow for people to shelter-in-place. c) Improve road access for emergency response and evacuation so people can evacuate safely and timely when necessary.
d) Improve, and educate regarding, local emergency communications and notifications with residents and businesses.
e) Enforce defensible space regulations to keep overgrown and unmanaged vegetation, accumulations of trash and other flammable material away from structures.
f) Provide public education about wildfire risk and fire prevention measures, and safety procedures and practices to allow for safe evacuation and/or options to shelter-in-place
g. Include external sprinklers with an independent water source to reduce flammability of structures.
h. Include local solar power paired with batteries to reduce power flow in electricity lines.

The Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because the Project is not located in a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
107
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project i. For developments in high fire-prone areas, have a fire protection plan for residents and businesses.
j. Provide fire hazard and fire safety education for homeowners in or near fire hazard areas.
k. Developments in fire-prone areas should have fire-resistant feature, such as: − Ember-resistant vents
− Fire-resistant roofs
− Surrounding defensible space
− Proper maintenance and upkeep of structures and surrounding area Impact WF-3: 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
risks or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment.

See PMM HAZ-4.

PMM WF-2: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to wildfire risk, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) New development or infrastructure activity within very high hazard severity zones or SRAs shall be required to:
1) Submit a fire protection plan including the designation of fire watch staff;
2) Maintain water and other fire suppression equipment designated solely for firefighting on site for any construction and maintenance activities;
3) Locate construction and maintenance equipment in designated “safe areas” such that they do not discharge combustible materials; and 4) Designate trained fire watch staff during project construction to reduce risk of fire hazards.

The Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because the Project is not located in a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Impact WF-4: Expose people or
structures to significant risks,
including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
stability, or drainage changes.

See PMM WF-1, PMM WF-2, PMM HYD-1, and PMM HAZ-4. The Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Nevertheless, the Project substantially conforms to this mitigation measure because the Project is not located in a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City’s General Plan Safety Element (Section 7.4) discusses Emergency
Management, which outlines goals and policies aimed at
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
108
Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to the Project emergency preparedness to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public during and after natural, manmade (technological), or attack-related emergencies.

Additionally, the proposed Project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures or long-term blocking of road access) that would substantially impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
109
6 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS/ INITIAL

STUDY CHECKLIST
This section includes the completed environmental checklist form. The checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The checklist form identifies potential Project effects as follows: 1) Potentially Significant Impact; 2) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; 3) Less Than Significant Impact; and, 4) No Impact. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided in Section 5 (Environmental Evaluation). Included in the discussion for each topic are standard condition/regulations and mitigation measures, if necessary, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed Project.

6.1 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” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and 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

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
111
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: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less 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 Analysis,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis 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.
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 analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
112

6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099 would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse 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) In non-urbanized areas, 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?
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse 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) In non-urbanized areas, 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?
a-d) Less than Significant Impact. In 2013, the State of California enacted Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), which made several changes to the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) for projects located in areas served by transit. Specifically, Public Resources Code Section 21099 provides that “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Public Resources Code Section 21099 defines a “transit priority area” as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is “existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 defines “major transit stop” as “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Public Resources Code Section 21099 defines an SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
113
infill site as a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. This state law supersedes the aesthetic impact thresholds set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

The Project would be a mixed-use, infill project located in a TPA. The Project includes development of an urban and developed site in Downtown Redlands. Public bus and rail transit is provided within the area of the Project site and the site is designated as a transit priority area and high quality transit area by the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The nearest rail station is the Arrow Line Downtown Redlands Station that is located approximately 0.26 mile north of the Project site. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to City of Redlands General Plan Action 2-A.35 that requires shielding of light to minimize lighting of adjacent off-site areas and generation of glare.

Thus, the Project’s aesthetic (and parking) impacts are not considered significant on the environment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099. Therefore, an assessment of the Project’s potential aesthetic impacts is not required.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measure
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
114

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2. AGRICULTURE 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 non-agricultural use?
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?
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
115
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Project site was formerly developed with public/institutional uses and located in an urbanized area that is not used for agriculture. In addition, the Project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on maps prepared pursuant to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder (CDC 2022). The Project site and adjacent areas are not designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be affected by the Project or converted to a non-agricultural use. Thus, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of agricultural and open space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to contract with private landowners for indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. The Project site is zoned C-3. Therefore, rezoning and development of the site would not result in the loss of agricultural land or affect any Williamson Act contracts. In addition, no parcels in the Project vicinity have Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. 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))? No Impact. As discussed previously, the Project site within an urbanized area and was previously developed with public/institutional uses. The Project site and vicinity is void of forest land or timberland. As described previously, the Project site is currently zoned for C-3 (General Commercial) District and is surrounded by areas zoned for commercial, residential, or public institution uses. No areas designated or zoned as forest land or timberland, or for timberland production, exist on or near the Project site. Thus, no impact would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site contains offsite ornamental palm trees that would be replaced by the Project and does not include forestland or timberland. Additionally, the Project site is not zoned as forestland, and is surrounded by urban development on all sides. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur.
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? No Impact. As discussed previously, the Project site is in an urbanized mixed-use area of the City of Redlands and is fully disturbed based on former development of the site with public/institutional uses. It is currently not used for agricultural purposes and is not designed or zoned for forest land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. Likewise, the proposed Project would not contribute to environmental changes that could result in conversion of farmland to a nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Thus, no impact would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
116
Mitigation Measure
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
117
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3. 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) affecting a substantial
number of people?
The discussion below is based on the City Center Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD and SCAG uses regional growth projections to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development-related sources. For purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed Project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed Project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a Project’s density is within the anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD considers a Project consistent with the AQMP if the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

Furthermore, The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal and state ozone standards and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.

The proposed Project would develop the site with 131 multi-family residences and 10,550 SF of restaurant uses. As further described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the 131 new residences would result in 2 SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
118
percent of the projected increase of residential units within the city. Furthermore, the development of the 10,550 SF of restaurant uses would result in the need for approximately 85 employees. This limited level of growth on within a developed area would not exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. Additionally, as previously discussed within Section 4.2.1 of this SCEA, the proposed Project would be consistent with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS In addition, as detailed below, the emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the proposed Project would be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal and state ozone standards and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Evaluation of cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in July 2008, recommending that all air quality analyses include an assessment of both construction and operational impacts on the air quality of nearby sensitive receptors from emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.

Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Urban Crossroads 2022 (Appendix A)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) site preparation, (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) architectural coating.

The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
119
height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling and is included as PPP AQ-1. In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the VOC content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents was accounted for in construction emissions modeling, and is included as PPP AQ-2. As shown in Table AQ2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds with implementation of PPP AQ-1 and PPP AQ-2. Therefore, construction activities would result in a less than significant impact.

Table AQ-2: Project Construction Emissions and Regional Thresholds Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 5.00 48.80 39.60 0.15 8.98 5.07
2024 41.40 29.70 42.70 0.05 3.92 2.05
Winter
2023 2.69 19.90 24.80 0.03 2.88 1.47
2024 41.40 29.90 39.40 0.05 3.92 2.05
Maximum Daily Emissions 41.40 48.80 42.70 0.15 8.98 5.07 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix A)
Operation
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. Operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions from implementation of the Project. In addition, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 that prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new developments will also be included as PPP AQ-3 to ensure compliance.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants, however, these emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table AQ-3: Project Operational Emissions and Regional Thresholds Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Source 24.20 10.20 97.10 0.23 7.71 1.49
Energy Source 4.45 2.27 10.70 0.01 0.18 0.18
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
120
Mobile Source 0.04 0.67 0.41 < 0.005 0.05 0.05
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 28.69 13.14 108.21 0.24 7.94 1.72 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 550 150 150 550 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Area Source 23.40 11.00 79.90 0.21 7.71 1.49
Energy Source 3.37 2.17 0.92 0.01 0.18 0.18
Mobile Source 0.04 0.67 0.41 < 0.005 0.05 0.05
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 26.81 13.84 81.23 0.22 7.94 1.72 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 550 150 150 550 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix A)
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) recommends the evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The City of Redlands is located within SCAQMD SRA 35.

Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residences are located adjacent to the Project site. The distance between the Project site boundary and the closest existing residential structure is approximately 11-feet west of the Project site. The LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.” As the existing residence is located less than 25-meters from the Project site, the 25-meter receptor distance is used for evaluation of localized impacts.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices (Rules 402 and 403, as included as PPP AQ-1 and PPP AQ-2). Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. As shown in Table AQ-4, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
121
Table AQ-4: Localized Significance Summary of Construction Construction
Activity Year Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site
Preparation 2023
Summer 47.00 38.00 8.19 5.02
Winter 0.64 0.52 0.11 0.07
Maximum Daily Emissions 47.00 38.00 8.19 5.02
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,625 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading 2023
Summer 25.40 21.60 3.77 2.31
Winter 0.56 0.47 0.08 0.05
Maximum Daily Emissions 25.40 21.60 3.77 2.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 1,324 8 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix A)
Operations
Operation of the proposed Project would include emissions from vehicles traveling to the Project site and from vehicles in the parking lots and loading areas. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed Project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. As such, impacts from operation of the Project to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

CO Hot Spot Analysis
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. In 2003, the SCAQMD estimated that a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a CO hot spot.

As detailed in Section 6.3.13, Transportation, in Table T-1, the proposed Project would generate 143 new vehicle trips (79 inbound trips and 64 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project is expected to generate 133 new vehicle trips (74 inbound trips and 59 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the Project is forecast to generate approximately 1,751 daily trip ends during a typical weekday. Thus, buildout of the proposed Project would not result in an increase in traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate a CO hot spot. Therefore, impacts related to CO “hot spots” from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor issues include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The proposed project would implement residential development within the project area. Residential uses do not involve the types of activities that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
122
odors generated by new and existing non-residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

During construction, emissions from diesel equipment, use of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate some nuisance odors. However, these odors would be temporary and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, emission impacts relating to both operational and construction activity odors would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. All applicable measures included in Rule 403, shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403, which include but are not limited to (1):
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (2):
• Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

PPP AQ-3: Rule 445. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 445 (3):
• Rule 445 prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new developments.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
123
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

4. 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 any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, 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?
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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is located in an urbanized and developed area of the city. The Project site is heavily disturbed, graded, and was previously fully developed with public/institutional uses. In its existing condition, the Project site contains non-native shrubs and grasses in few areas and offsite palm trees within the Brookside Avenue right-of-way. The existing trees on Brookside Avenue have the potential to provide habitat for nesting migratory birds. Many of these trees would be removed and replaced during construction. Therefore, the proposed Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation and trees are removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
124
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Any activities that occur during the nesting/breeding season of birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), could result in a potentially significant impact if requirements of the MBTA are not followed. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-1 would ensure MTBA compliance and would require a nesting bird survey to be conducted prior to the commencement of construction during nesting season, which would reduce potential impacts related to nesting avian species and native wildlife nursery sites to a less than significant level.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 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?
No Impact. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. As described above, the Project site is heavily disturbed, graded, and consists of mostly vacant land. According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, the Project site does not contain riparian habitat (USFWS 2022). There are no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, no impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. As previously discussed, according to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, the Project site does not contain federally protected wetlands (USFWS 2022). In addition, the Project site does not contain any jurisdictional areas that would be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the proposed Project does not involve any hydrological interruption on any existing water resources. Therefore, the redevelopment of the Project site would not result in impacts to wetlands. 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect areas of open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals and access to additional areas of foraging. The Project site does not contain, or is not adjacent to, any wildlife corridors. The Project site is surrounded by roadways and developed areas. Areas of commercial, residential, public institutional, and additional roadways are located beyond the roadways adjacent to the site. Development of the site would not result in impacts related to established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor.

As described previously, offsite areas contain ornamental vegetation that provides potentially suitable habitat for nesting birds. Therefore, if vegetation is required to be removed during nesting bird season, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted prior to vegetation removal. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts related to native wildlife nursery sites would be reduced to a less than significant level. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
125
Less than Significant Impact. Chapter 12.52 of the City of Redlands’s Municipal Code regulates trees and tree protection along streets and in public places. As part of the Project, existing trees around the perimeter of the Project site would be removed and replaced with a variety of trees and ornamental landscaping. The Project would be required obtain permits for tree removal and replacement within the Brookside Avenue public sidewalk. With compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.52, Project impacts to public trees would be less than significant.

In addition, the City General Plan outlines policies that protect biological resources; however, these policies pertain to ecological areas such as San Timoteo Canyon, Live Oak Canyon, the Crafton Hills, and the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, and other riparian areas within the city. The Project site is in an urbanized area of the city and is not located in an area identified by the city as having ecological value. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impact would be less than significant.
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? No Impact. The Project site is developed and within an urbanized area. The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Pre‐construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction plans and Project specifications shall state that if construction or other Project activities are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February through August for raptors and March through August for most migratory bird species), a pre‐construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that active bird nests, will not be disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the Project area and adjacent areas where proposed Project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly due to construction activity or noise.

If an active nest is identified, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate disturbance limit buffer around the nest using flagging or staking. Construction activities shall not occur within any disturbance limit buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
126
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The discussion below is based on the Architectural and Historical Significance Assessments of 212 or 216 Brookside Avenue, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, prepared by Archaeological Associates, June 2018 (AA 2018), Appendix B; Preliminary Geotechnical Report, prepared by Hilltop Geotechnical, Inc., February 2018, Appendix C.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by the Project’s Lead Agency. Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as there are no eligible historical resources on the Project site.

The California Register of Historical Resources defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition, Section 2.62 of the Redlands Municipal Code states that a structure with aesthetics, architectural, historical value which is 50 years old or older may be designated as a Historic Resource. A structure with exceptional esthetics, architectural, or historical value may be designated as a Landmark Resource. The criteria, any one of which may be used to determine such designation, are as follows:

A. It [a nominated resource] has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city of Redlands, state of California, or the United States; B. It is the site of a significant historic event;
C. It is strongly identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the city;
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
127
D. It is one of the few remaining examples in the city possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen;
E. It is a notable work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has significantly influenced the development of the city;
F. It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represents a significant architectural innovation;
G. It has a unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city; H. It has unique design or detailing;
I. It is a particularly good example of a period or style; J. It contributes to the historical or scenic heritage or historical or scenic properties of the city (to include, but not be limited to, landscaping, light standards, trees, curbings, and signs); K. It is located within a historic and scenic or urban conservation district, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic or scenic properties which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development.

The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project site was formerly developed with the City of Redlands Safety Hall and San Bernardino County Branch Building. Both buildings were demolished in 2018. Therefore, there are no buildings onsite which could qualify as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Based on the records search result conducted for the Project site, the site does not contain any known historical resources and is not directly adjacent to any known historical resources (AA 2018). As such, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The records search conducted for the Project site indicated that there are no known cultural resources within the Project site (AA 2018). The Phase I ESAs prepared for the Project site include aerial photographs that detail that the site was used for commercial uses and public/institutional uses since 1925. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the Project site describes that onsite testing identified artificial fill soils of seven feet in depth across the site.

Project construction would include overexcavation to a depth of at least 11 feet below ground surface (bgs) as part of development of the proposed building foundations. Project grading has the potential to encroach into native soils that have not been previously disturbed and could contain archaeological resources. As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires retention of an archaeologist that would observe ground disturbing activities and recover archaeological resources as necessary. In addition, the archaeologist would be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for archeological resource surveillance. Mitigation CUL-1would also halt work within 50 feet of a find until it can be evaluated by the qualified on-call archaeologist. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency(ies). With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site has been previously disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of human remains. In addition, compliance with California Health and Safety SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
128
Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and made recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with existing law, included as PPP CUL-1, would ensure that impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during project construction, the project will be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to perform archaeological monitoring and the archaeologist shall be present during initial grounddisturbing activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition of historic structures, and grading up to ten feet below surface) to identify and assess any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resource. The qualified archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Project site. The plan shall include a scope of work, project grading and development scheduling, pre-construction meeting (with consultants, contractors, and monitors), a monitoring schedule during all initial grounddisturbance related activities, safety requirements, and protocols to follow in the event of previously unknown cultural resources discoveries that could be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The plan shall be submitted to the City and the Consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment, prior to final approval by the City. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall incorporate the components described in 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 the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside the buffered area may continue during the assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians shall be contacted, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall follow the stipulations of the Monitoring and Treatment Plan. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
129
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.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
130
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

6. ENERGY. Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
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?
The discussion below is based on the City Center Energy Tables, prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Appendix C.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
During construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project sites, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Construction activities related to the proposed mixed-use development and the associated infrastructure is not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Table E-1 details the construction fuel usage over the Project’s 1-year construction period. As shown in Table E-1, Project construction would require the consumption of 54,473 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days) Equipment HP Rating Quantity Usage Hours
Load
Factor
HPhrs/dayTotal Fuel
Consumption
Site Preparation 5
Crawler Tractors 87.0 4.00 8.00 0.43 1,197 324
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 3.00 8.00 0.40 3,523 952
Grading 8
Crawler Tractors 87.0 3.00 8.00 0.43 898 388
Excavators 36.0 1.00 8.00 0.38 109 47
Graders 148 1.00 8.00 0.41 485 210
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 1.00 8.00 0.40 1,174 508
Building
Construction 390
Cranes 367 1.00 8.00 0.29 851 17,949
Crawler Tractors 87.0 3.00 8.00 0.43 898 18,927
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
131
Forklifts 82.0 3.00 8.00 0.20 394 8,298
Generator Sets 14.0 1.00 8.00 0.74 83 1,747
Welders 46.0 1.00 8.00 0.45 166 3,491
Paving 18
Cement and Mortar
Mixers

10.0 2.00 8.00 0.56 90 87
Crawler Tractors 87.0 1.00 8.00 0.43 299 291
Pavers 81.0 1.00 8.00 0.42 272 265
Paving Equipment 89.0 2.00 8.00 0.36 513 499
Rollers 36.0 2.00 8.00 0.38 219 213
Architectural
Coating 36 Air Compressors 37.0 1.00 8.00 0.48 142 276
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL) 54,473
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
Table E-2 shows the energy consumption for construction worker light-duty auto (LDA) vehicles. As shown, construction worker LDAs would consume 14,087 gallons of gasoline.

Table E-2: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDA) Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/ Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2023
Site Preparation 5 9 18.5 833 30.68 27
Grading 8 8 18.5 1,184 30.68 39
Building Construction 181 59 18.5 197,562 30.68 6,438
2024
Building Construction 209 59 18.5 228,124 31.57 7,225
Paving 18 10 18.5 3,330 31.57 105
Architectural Coating 36 12 18.5 7,992 31.57 253
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDA) FUEL CONSUMPTION 14,087 Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
Table E-3 and E-4 show the energy consumption for construction worker light-duty-trucks (LDT). As shown, construction worker LDT-1s would require 9,153 gallons of fuel and LDT-2s would require 9,226 gallons of fuel.

Table E-3: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT1) Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips / Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2023
Site Preparation 5 5 18.5 463 24.14 19
Grading 8 4 18.5 592 24.14 25
Building Construction 181 30 18.5 100,455 24.14 4,162
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
132
2024
Building Construction 209 30 18.5 115,995 24.59 4,717
Paving 18 5 18.5 1,665 24.59 68
Architectural Coating 36 6 18.5 3,996 24.59 162
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION 9,153 Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
Table E-4: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (LDT2) Construction
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips / Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2023
Site Preparation 5 5 18.5 463 23.82 19
Grading 8 4 18.5 592 23.82 25
Building Construction 181 30 18.5 100,455 23.82 4,218
2024
Building Construction 209 30 18.5 115,995 24.51 4,733
Paving 18 5 18.5 1,665 24.51 68
Architectural Coating 36 6 18.5 3,996 24.51 163
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER (LDT1) FUEL CONSUMPTION 9,226 Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
Tables E-5 shows the fuel consumption by medium-heavy duty (MHDT) and heavy-heavy duty (HHDT) vendor and hauling vehicle trips during various construction phases of the Project.

Table E-5: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHDT & HHDT) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Vendor/
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
VMT
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy (mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
2023
MHDT
Site Preparation 5 1 10.2 51 8.30 6
Grading 8 1 10.2 82 8.30 10
Building Construction 181 11 10.2 20,308 8.30 2,448
HHDT (Vendor)
Site Preparation 5 1 10.2 51 5.94 9
Grading 8 1 10.2 82 5.94 14
Building Construction 181 11 10.2 20,308 5.94 3,418
HHDT (Hauling)
Grading 8 34 20 5,440 5.94 916
2024
MHDT
Building Construction 209 11 10.2 23,450 8.34 2,811
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
133
HHDT (Vendor)
Building Construction 209 11 10.2 23,450 6.03 3,892
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION VENDOR/HAULING FUEL CONSUMPTION 13,523 Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
Construction of the Project would result in fuel consumption from the use of construction tools and equipment, vendor and haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the site. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State.

Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for fuel tanks. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the building, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption.

The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local governments. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar panels on each residential building; energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur. As detailed in Table E-6, vehicles and trucks traveling to and from the operational Project site would consume 260,203 gallons of fuel.

Table E-6: Total Project-generated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Average Vehicle Fuel
Economy (mpg) Annual VMT Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) LDA 31.57 3,079,771 97,543
LDT1 24.59 255,605 10,394
LDT2 24.51 1,226,330 50,042
MDV 19.97 947,476 47,453
LHDT1 15.81 179,062 11,323
LHDT2 14.97 48,328 3,229
MHDT 8.34 104,185 12,490
HHDT 6.03 104,853 17,402
OBUS 6.15 3,843 625
UBUS 4.86 1,940 399
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
134
MCY 41.98 129,861 3,093
SBUS 6.43 6,709 1,044
MH 5.74 29,652 5,164
TOTAL ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 6,117,613 260,203
MDV = Medium Duty Trucks; LHDT1 = Light-Duty Trucks (Vehicles under the LHDT1 category have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs.); LHDT2 = Light-Duty Trucks (Vehicles under the LHDT2 category have a GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs.); OBUS = Other Buses; UBUS = Urban Buses; MCY = Motorcycle; SBUS = School Bus; MH = Motorhome Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
As shown in Table E-7, the Project would result in an annual natural gas demand of 2,586,459 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas, and approximately 916,881 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity.

Table E-7: Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary Land Use Natural Gas Demand
(kBTU/year)
Electricity Demand
(kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 1,445,871 565,417
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1,140,588 350,667
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 797
Landscape 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0
TOTAL PROJECT ENERGY DEMAND 2,586,459 916,881
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix C)
As such, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the City of the Redlands Municipal Code Chapter

15.18 requires that all new residential development comply with the California Green Building Standards, Title 24, Part 11 (CalGreen). CALGreen Code includes provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable plans related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, including the implementation of solar energy.

Implementation of the requirements are ensured through the City’s development permitting process. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
135
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
136
The discussion below is based on the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical/Geologic Study & Infiltrometer Testing, prepared by Hilltop Geotechnical, Inc., February 12, 2018 (Hilltop 2018) included as Appendix D.

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

7. 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?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
137
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?
No Impact. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law and renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act) in 1994. The primary purpose of the Act is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy access the trace of an active fault. The A-P Act requires the State Geologist (Chief of the California Geology Survey) to delineate “Earthquake Fault Zones” along with faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well-defined.” The boundary of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” is generally about 500 feet from major active faults and 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The A-P Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the site zones are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting.

The Project site does not contain and is not in the vicinity of an earthquake fault, is not affected by a statedesignated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest active faults are the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.2 miles northeast of the site, and the San Jacinto Fault, which is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the site. Accordingly, the potential for ground rupture at the site is considered low. Thus, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and impacts would not occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. As mentioned previously, the San Andreas Fault is located approximately 5.2 northeast of the Project site and the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Project site. Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site. The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.

Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Chapter 15.04. In addition, PPP GEO-1 has been included to provide provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of the ground motion.

Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking.

Because the proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with the CBC, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.

Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
138
sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.

According to Redlands General Plan Figure 7-6, the Project site is not located in an area mapped for liquefaction susceptibility; therefore, the potential for liquefaction to occur is low. Additionally, as discussed in the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical, historic groundwater levels are approximately 75 feet below ground surface. Compliance with the CBC, included as PPP GEO-1, would require specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that project structures would withstand the effects of seismic ground movement, including liquefaction and settlement. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City’s Municipal Code for structural safety (included as PPP GEO-1) would reduce hazards from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement to a less than significant level. iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.

As described above, the Project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking.

However, the site is located in a relatively flat and developed area. According to the Redlands General Plan Figure 7-6, the Project site is not located in an area mapped for landslide risk. Therefore, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to slope instability or seismically induced landslides.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. In its existing condition, the Project site is disturbed and vacant. The Project would involve the construction of a mixed-use development on the Project site. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. The increased erosion potential could result in short-term water quality impacts.

As discussed in further detail in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project would increase the impervious surface area on the Project site compared to existing conditions. This would change the volume of stormwater runoff generated from the Project site. However, since the Project site is relatively flat, soil erosion would be controlled via implementation of standard erosion control practices required by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction (included as PPP WQ-1). Furthermore, the Project would implement SCAQMD Rule 403 (included as PPP AQ-1), which would limit wind erosion during Project construction.

Once developed, the Project’s implementation would not increase the volume of runoff from the Project site because the proposed Project would include landscaped pervious surfaces intended to capture stormwater runoff, as well as new drainage infrastructure designed to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff, which is further described in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. In addition, implementation of the project requires City approval of a site-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 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 on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the Project site is relatively level, and does not contain SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
139
nor is adjacent to any significant slope or hillside area. The Project would not create slopes. Thus, on or offsite landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project.

Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction, is a display of lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post liquefaction. It is typically exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils, and usually takes place on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as drainage or stream channel.

According to the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical for the proposed Project, the depth of groundwater is anticipated to be at a depth of 75 feet or greater; therefore, lateral spreading is not considered a geotechnical hazard for the Project (Hilltop, 2018). Thus, the soils are not susceptible to lateral spreading and impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Differential settlement or subsidence could occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength foundation materials (including imported fill) or if improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials (e.g., a boundary between native material and fill). Although differential settlement generally occurs slowly enough that its effects are not dangerous to inhabitants, it can cause building damage over time. Soils susceptible to seismically induced settlement typically include loose, granular materials.

With implementation of the requirements of the CBC, as included as PPP GEO-1, the potential for settlement or collapse of soils is considered low (Hilltop, 2018). Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the CBC as identified in the site geotechnical design recommendations that would be reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion, as part of the building plan check and development review process, would reduce potential impacts related to ground collapse to a less than significant level. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils.

Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

The Report of Preliminary Geotechnical performed an evaluation of the potential for expansive soils at the site and expansion index testing was performed on representative samples of the near surface soils which are anticipated to be within the zone of influence of the planned improvements. The report found that the site has approximately 5 to 7 feet of fill material across the majority of the site. As discussed in the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical, all onsite soils and engineered fill soils would be required to meet CBC expansion index requirements, included as PPP GEO-1. As required by PPP GEO-1, specific engineering design recommendations would be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects of related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
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? No Impact. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface soils. Furthermore, the proposed Project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
140
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As mentioned previously, the proposed Project is located on a previously disturbed site within an urbanized area of the City of Redlands. As discussed in the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical, the site soils consist of younger and older surficial deposits, more specifically very young wash deposits, active (Qvyw) and very old axial-valley deposits, Unit 3 (Qvoa3).

Very young surficial deposits are the result of recently transported and deposited sediment into channels and washes on surfaces of alluvial fans, alluvial plains, and on hill slopes. Very old surficial deposits are sedimentary units that are moderately to well consolidated to lithified, and moderately to well dissected.

Valley-filling deposits (Qvoa series) are dominated by sand with minor gravel alluvial deposits and includes residuum or pedogenic-soil profile developed on the San Timoteo Formation beds. The San Timoteo Badlands area and the western portion of the City of Redlands have a high potential to produce significant paleontological resources.

Records of vertebrate fossil localities have been found in other local sedimentary deposits similar to those that occur on the Project site. Previous finds include a vertebrate fossil locality from somewhat similar deposits is located approximately 8 to 10 miles south of the Project site. The locality came from the San Timoteo Formation and consisted of vertebrates belonging to the horse and camel family at an unknown depth.

Additional literature was consulted, including The University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP)’s Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MioMap), resulting in eight fossil localities from the San Timoteo Formation located approximately five miles south-southeast of the Project site.

Therefore, Project related excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits may encounter fossil vertebrates. As a result, Mitigation Measure PAL-1 is included to require that any substantial excavations below three feet be monitored to identify and recover any significant fossil remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.

PPP WQ-1: SWPPP. As listed below in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Mitigation Measures
MM PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Redlands Planning Department, or designee, from a qualified professional paleontologist pursuant to the 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. The PRIMP shall also require paleontological monitoring pursuant to the 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology for ground disturbing activities greater than five feet in depth within native soil, as determined by the Project paleontologist.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
141
In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered.

Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes.

Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
142
The discussion below is based on the City Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Appendix E.

Technical Background
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.

Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses.

Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride10F0F0F

1. Emissions of CO2 and N2O
are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. These regulations require the use of alternative energy, such as solar power. The California Energy Commission passed a measure as an update to the state’s 2019 Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which requires that all new homes under three stories high install solar panels starting January 1, 2020, and that solar systems must be sized to net out the annual kilowatt-hour energy usage of the dwelling21F1F1F

2. All new residential projects under three stories, including the proposed project, are required to comply with these new standards.

GHG Thresholds
The City of Redlands has an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), which was adopted December 5, 2017, however the CAP does not itself establish a numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Notwithstanding, the City has utilized a screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year to determine if a potential GHG related impact would 1 Section 38505(g), Health and Safety Code; and Section 21083.05, Public Resources Code 2 2019 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, Section 110.10(b), https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAEC2019/subchapter-2-all-occupanciesmandatory-requirements-for-the-manufacture-construction-and-installation-of-systems-equipment-and-building-components Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

8. 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?
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
143
occur from a project. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the City of Redlands and numerous agencies in the SCAB.

In addition, SCAQMD methodology for Project’s construction are to average them over 30-years and then add them to the Project’s operational emissions to determine if the Project would exceed the screening values listed above.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emissions associated with Project construction would occur over the short term and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Long-term regional emissions would also be associated with new vehicular trips and stationery-source emissions (i.e., natural gas used for heating and electricity usage for lighting). The calculations presented below include construction emissions in terms of annual CO2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the proposed Project.

As discussed previously, during construction of the proposed Project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment, as well as emissions from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from onsite construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

During operations, the Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips; water, natural gas, and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project generated vehicle trips associated with resident trips to and from the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for cooking and heating, and other sources. Increases in stationary-source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed use.

The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project are estimated to be approximately 2,761.15 MT CO2e/yr as summarized in Table GHG-1. This would be below the 3,000 MT CO2e/yr threshold used by the City of Redlands. As such, a less than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions would result from the Project.

Table GHG-1: Total Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 33.87 1.67E-03 1.67E-03 0.03 34.37 Mobile Source 2,297.00 0.13 0.12 4.16 2,339.00
Area Source 34.70 <0.005 <0.005 - 34.70
Energy Source 282.00 0.03 <0.005 - 283.00
Water Usage 12.00 0.28 0.01 - 20.90
Waste 13.20 1.32 0.00 - 46.30
Refrigerants - - - 2.88 2.88
Total CO2e (All Sources) 2,761.15
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix E)
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
144
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s consistency with SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan) and the City’s CAP are described below.

SB 32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. As summarized in Table GHG-2, the Project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories.

Table GHG-2: 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard
to 50% of retail sales by 2030 and ensure
grid reliability.

CPUC,
CEC,
CARB
Consistent. This measure is not directly
applicable to development projects, but the
proposed Project would use energy from
Southern California Edison (SCE), which has
committed to diversify its portfolio of
energy sources by increasing energy from
wind and solar sources.

Establish annual targets for statewide energy
efficiency savings and demand reduction that
will achieve a cumulative doubling of
statewide energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

Consistent. The Project would be
constructed in compliance with current
California Building Code requirements.

Specifically, new buildings must achieve
compliance with the current Building and
Energy Efficiency Standards and the current
California Green Building Standards
requirements. The proposed Project includes
energy efficient field lighting and fixtures
that meet the current Title 24 Standards
throughout the Project Site and would be a
modern development with energy efficient
boilers, heaters, and air conditioning
systems.

Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector
through the implementation of the above
measures and other actions as modeled in
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to meet
GHG emissions reductions planning targets in
the IRP process. Load-serving entities and
publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions
reductions planning targets through a
combination of measures as described in IRPs.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in
hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025. CARB, California State Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans), CEC,
OPR, Local Agencies
Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the Project
that comply with the standards will comply
with the strategy.

At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in
hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the Project
that comply with the standards will comply
with the strategy.

Further increase GHG stringency on all lightduty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean cars regulations.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the Project
that comply with the standards will comply
with the strategy
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
145
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced
standards; vehicles that access the Project
that comply with the standards will comply
with the strategy
Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite
of to-be-determined innovative clean transit
options. Assumed 20% of new urban buses
purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero
emission buses with the penetration of zeroemission technology ramped up to 100% of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas
buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses,
starting in 2020, meet the optional heavyduty low-NOX standard.

Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would
result in the use of low NOX or cleaner
engines and the deployment of increasing
numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for
class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in
California. This measure assumes ZEVs
comprise 2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck sales
in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to
10% in 2025 and remaining flat through
2030.

Not applicable. This Project is not
responsible for implementation of SB 375
and would therefore not conflict with this
measure.

Further reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
through continued implementation of SB 375
and regional Sustainable Communities
Strategies; forthcoming statewide
implementation of SB 743; and potential
additional VMT reduction strategies not
specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but
included in the document “Potential VMT
Reduction Strategies for Discussion.”
Not applicable. This Project is not
responsible for implementation of SB 375
and would therefore not conflict with this
measure.

Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2035 targets). CARB
Not applicable. The Project is not within the
purview of SB 375 and would therefore
not conflict with this measure.

By 2019, adjust performance measures used to select and design transportation facilities Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g., via guideline
documents, funding programs, project
selection, etc.).

CalSTA, SGC, OPR,
CARB, Governor’s
Office of Business
and Economic
Development (GO
Biz), California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(IBank), Department
of Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission (CTC),
Not applicable. Although this is directed
towards CARB and Caltrans, the proposed
Project would be designed to promote and
support pedestrian activity onsite and in the
Project Site area by providing pedestrian
access from the residential section to the
restaurants and offsite retail uses.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
146
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Caltrans
By 2019, develop pricing policies to support
low-GHG transportation (e.g., low-emission
vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user,
parking pricing, transit discounts).

CalSTA, Caltrans,

CTC, OPR,

SGC, CARB
Not applicable. This Project is not
responsible for developing pricing policies
to support low-GHG transportation.

Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency.

CalSTA, CalEPA,

CNRA, CARB,
Caltrans, CEC,
GO-Biz
When adopted, this measure would apply
to all trucks accessing the Project site, this
may include existing trucks or new trucks that
are part of the statewide goods movement
sector.

Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and
equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and nearzero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.

Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a
Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. CARB
LCFS, with an increased stringency (18% by
2030). When adopted, this measure would
apply to all fuel purchased and used by the
Project in the state.

Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy by 2030 40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013
levels.

CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
When adopted, the Project would be
required to comply with this measure and
reduce SLPS accordingly.
50% reduction in black carbon emissions
below 2013 levels.

Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs
to support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program with declining annual caps. CARB
When adopted, the Project would be
required to comply with the Cap-andTrade Program if it generates emissions from sectors covered by Cap-and-Trade.

By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other incentives.

CNRA,
Departments Within
CDFA,
CalEPA,
CARB
Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Increase the long-term resilience of carbon
storage in the land base and enhance
sequestration capacity
Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
147
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Utilize wood and agricultural products to
increase the amount of carbon stored in the
natural and built environments
Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Establish scenario projections to serve as the
foundation for the Implementation Plan
Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Establish a carbon accounting framework for
natural and working lands as described in
SB 859 by 2018
CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Implement Forest Carbon Plan
CNRA, California
Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL
FIRE), CalEPA and
Departments Within
Not applicable. This measure is not within
the purview of this Project.

Identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.

State Agencies &
Local Agencies Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this Project.

Consistency with the Redlands CAP. The City of Redlands adopted its CAP in December 2017. The CAP did not identify any required measure to achieve the 2030 emission targets. However, the CAP did recommend several measures that would achieve GHG reductions including providing solar photovoltaic systems, increasing energy efficiency 5% over 2016 standards, and using high efficiency lighting, and reducing GHG emissions associated with water delivery and treatment by 10%. In support of these measures the Project would increase energy efficiency approximately 30% over 2016 standards primarily through high efficiency of lighting. Additionally, the Project would comply with CALGreen indoor water requirements, which represent a 20% reduction in water use, and the Redlands MWELO, which would reduce outdoor water use.

Thus, the Project would not obstruct the City of Redlands CAP GHG reduction and would therefore have a less than significant impact.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
148
The discussion below is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, prepared by Force Environmental, Inc., included as Appendix F1 and F2 and the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Force Environmental, Inc., included as Appendix G. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
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?
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?
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
149
are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. In addition, hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, which the project construction activities are required to strictly adhere to. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. As a result, the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities of the project would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project involves construction of 131 multi-family residential uses and 10,550 SF of restaurant space.

Residential and commercial uses typically do not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment because residents and retail/office employees are not anticipated to use, store, dispose, or transport large volumes of hazardous materials. Typically used hazardous materials include solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities within the residential and commercial buildings. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment.

To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction are implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1).

Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
150
Underground Storage Tanks & Shooting Range. As discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for 212 Brookeside Avenue, two recognized environmental conditions (RECs) were identified.

Based on a review of records at the City of Redlands Department of Building and Safety, an underground diesel fuel storage tank (UST) was removed from the site in 1996. The UST was replaced with an aboveground diesel fuel storage tank. No soil sampling report was found for the removal of this UST.

Additionally, during site reconnaissance, significant quantities of used bullet shells and bullet fragments were found inside the now-demolished shooting range room. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment concluded that there is a potential for lead from bullets accumulating in soil within the shooting range. As such, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was conducted with soils testing. Soils testing results indicated low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils in two samples and low concentrations of lead. However, these concentrations were below the Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) residential and commercial limits. As such, the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment concluded that no additional testing was needed.

Therefore, impacts related to the former UST and shooting range would be less than significant.

Operation
Operation of the proposed multi-family residences and restaurants involve use and storage of common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. Normal routine use of these typical commercially used products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the proposed mixed-use Project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. The nearest schools to the Project site are McKinley Elementary School located at 645 W. Olive Avenue, which is 0.35-mile from the Project site, and Redlands High School located at 840 E. Citrus Avenue, which is 0.69-mile from the Project site. As such, the Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed schools.

Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school and impacts would be less than significant. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, the Project site is not located on a federal Superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, corrective action site, or tiered permit site (DTSC 2022). Additionally, according to the State Water Resource Control Board’s Geotracker database, the Project site is not located on a Leaking UST Cleanup Site, Cleanup Program Site, Military Cleanup Site, Military Privitized Site, or Military UST site (SWRCB 2022). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to a known hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project 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? No Impact. The proposed Project is not within an airport land use plan; however, the proposed Project is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest from the Redlands Municipal Airport. According to the Figure 7- 7: Airport Hazards, within the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not within a A: Runway Protection Zone, B1: Approach/Departure Zone, B2: Extended Approach/Departure Zone, C: Common Traffic Pattern, D:

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
151
Other Airport Environ, or within an Area of Special Compatibility Concern. Additionally, the proposed mixeduse development would be a maximum of four stories and approximately 55 ft in height at the parapet.

Thus, the development would not be of a sufficient height to require modifications to the existing air traffic patterns at the airport and would not affect aviation traffic levels or otherwise result in substantial aviationrelated safety risks. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an impact to an airport land use plan and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of new driveways and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project would not require closure of Eureka Street, W Citrus Avenue, or Brookside Avenue. Any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections or driveway construction would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate vehicle circulation, as included within construction permits. Thus, implementation of the project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access or evacuation impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
Direct access to the Project site would be provided from driveways along W Citrus Avenue, Eureka Street, and Brookside Avenue. The Project driveways and internal access would be required through the City’s permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation. Additionally, the drive aisles would be a minimum of 20-feet-wide, which would ensure adequate spacing for emergency access and evacuation. The Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Fire Department and/or Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Municipal Code Chapter 15.20. As such, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City of Redlands. The Project site is bounded by residences and commercial uses to the west, W Citrus Avenue and commercial uses to the north, Eureka Street to the east, and Brookside Avenue to the south. The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas.

According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2022). As a result, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP WQ-1: SWPPP. As listed below in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
152
Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
153
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

10. 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
off-site;
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
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
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?
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Hicks & Hartwick, Inc., included as Appendix H.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves construction of a mixed-use development on the Project site.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
154
Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Pollutants of concern during Project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, constructionrelated pollutants, such as chemicals, liquid and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste, could be spilled, leaked, or transported via stormwater runoff into adjacent drainages and into downstream receiving waters.

Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as:
• Maximize the permeable area,
• Incorporate landscaped buffer areas,
• Maximize canopy interception with drought tolerant landscaping • Low flow infiltration within sand filter zones
• Site design with minimum design standards
• Landscape design with minimum to no impervious surfaces • Isolated roof run-off into proposed Treatment Control Facility Adherence to the Construction General Permit requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City’s construction permitting process are included as PPP WQ-1, which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project would include operation of multi-family residences and commercial restaurant uses, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as, chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. However, in accordance with the County of San Bernardino and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas.

The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to an underground infiltration system. This system would remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). The additional types of BMPs that would be implemented as part of the proposed Project are listed in Table HYD-1.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
155
Table HYD-1: Types of BMPs Incorporated into the Project Design Type of BMP Description of BMPs
LID Site
Design
Optimize the site layout: The site has been designed so that runoff from impervious surfaces would flow to underground infiltration systems. Overflow would be directed to planter boxes.

Use pervious surfaces: Landscaping is incorporated into the Project design to increase the amount of pervious area and onsite retention of stormflows. Additionally, the Project would include planter boxes throughout the site.

Source
Control
Storm Drain Stenciling: All inlets/catch basins would be stenciled with the words “No Dumping—Drains to River,” or equivalent message.

Need for future indoor & structural pest control: The buildings would be designed to avoid openings that would encourage entry of pests to minimize the use of pesticides.

Landscape/outdoor pesticide use: Final landscape plans would accomplish all of the following:
• Design landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. • Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. • To ensure successful establishment, select plants appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions
Roofing, gutters and trim: The architectural design would avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff.

Sidewalks and parking lots: Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris from pressure washing would be collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser would be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer and not discharged to a storm drain.

Treatment
Control
The infiltration systems proposed for the Project would detain runoff, filter it prior to discharge.

With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that are outlined in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix H) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the project permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies. The Project site is underlain by the Bunker Hill Subbasin and Yucaipa Subbasin. The City extracts water from the Bunker Hill Subbasin and Yucaipa Subbasin (UWMP 2020). As of 2020, the groundwater from Bunker Hill totals

48.4% and the groundwater from Yucaipa Subbasin totals 1.1% of the City’s annual water production.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
156
Water pumping from the Bunker Hill Subbasin is adjudicated, which limits the allowable groundwater extraction to ensure a safe yield. Because the groundwater basin is managed through this plan, which limits the allowable withdrawal of water from the basin by water purveyors, and the Project would not pump water from the Project area (as water supplies would be provided by the City), the proposed Project would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies.

In addition, development of the proposed Project would result in large areas of impervious surfaces on the Project site. However, the Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to infiltration chambers within the parking areas. In addition, the Project includes areas of landscaping that would infiltrate stormwater onsite. Stormwater capture would be compliant with the Design Capture Volume (DCV) requirements of the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program through the implementation of infiltration, biotreatment, and Water Quality Credits. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
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 off-site; Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, existing regulations require the project to implement a project specific SWPPP during construction activities, that would implement erosion control BMPs, such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. to reduce the potential for siltation or erosion during Project construction. In addition, the Project is required to implement a WQMP, included as PPP WQ-2, that would provide operational BMPs to ensure that operation of the multi-family residences and restaurants would not result in erosion or siltation. With implementation of these regulations, impacts related to erosion or siltation onsite or off-site would be less than significant. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to underground infiltration systems that would capture and filter runoff. In addition, the Project includes 17,303 SF of landscaping that would capture stormwater onsite. These drainage facilities have been designed to accommodate the Project. The drainage facilities in drainage management area (DMA) 1 of the site have been designed to accommodate 8,631 cubic feet of stormwater and DMA 2 of the site has been designed to accommodate 2,330 cubic feet of stormwater. Additional stormwater capture and treatment methods such as biotreatment and Water Quality Credits would be applied to comply with San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requirements. As such, impacts related to flooding resulting from alteration of drainage patterns would be less than significant. 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
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously in Response 6.3.10(a), construction of the proposed Project has the potential to introduce pollutants to the storm drainage system from erosion, siltation, and accidental spills. However, as required by PPP WQ-1, a SWPPP would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to water quality, including those impacts associated with soil erosion, siltation, and spills, so as not to provide additional sources of polluted runoff to the storm drain system. Therefore, construction impacts related to the provision of substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
157
The Project would realign existing storm drains lines within the site and install new storm drain lines throughout the site. Additionally, the Project would install multiple planter boxes for stormwater infiltration (17,303 SF of landscaping) and infiltration chambers under the proposed parking lot. These drainage facilities have been designed to accommodate the Project and would reduce potential additional sources of polluted runoff to a less than significant level.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to FEMA’s FIRM Flood Map, the northeastern tip of the Project site is located in Flood Zone AO, which means that portion of the Project site has the potential for shallow flooding during 100-year storm events. Since the proposed Project is partially within Zone AO, it must comply with City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, Flood Damage Prevention. Compliance measures include constructing occupiable building floors at least 2 feet above the estimated 100-year flood level to limit impacts from flooding. With compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. According to FEMA’s FIRM Flood Map, the northeastern tip of the Project site is located in Flood Zone AO, which means that portion of the Project site has the potential for shallow flooding during 100-year storm events. Since the proposed Project is partially within Zone AO, it must comply with City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, Flood Damage Prevention. With compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation and impacts would be less than significant.

Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The proposed Project is approximately 50 miles from the ocean shoreline. Based on the inland location of the Project site, the Project site is not at risk of inundation from tsunami. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami and no impacts would occur.

A seiche is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves inside water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. The Project site is not located adjacent to any water retention facilities. For this reason, the Project site is not at risk of inundation from seiche waves. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from seiche and no impacts would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is fully vacant and was previously developed, and the proposed Project would result in a substantial increase of imperviousness. As described above, the proposed storm drain system is sized to adequately accommodate increased stormwater flows from the Project area and would maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site. Runoff would discharge into one of onsite infiltration chambers or planter boxes, which would retain, slow, and/or filter the runoff before its discharge through new storm drain connections to the existing storm drain infrastructure.

As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by the City during the project permitting and approval SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
158
process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Also as described previously, groundwater is adjudicated, which limits the allowable groundwater extraction to ensure a safe yield. Because the groundwater basin is managed through this plan, which limits the allowable withdrawal of water from the basin by water purveyors, and the Project would not pump water from the project area (as water supplies would be provided by the City), the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a groundwater management plan, and no impacts would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP WQ-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer) pursuant to the Municipal Code Chapter 13.54. The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to limit the potential of polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Redlands staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

PPP WQ-2: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project developer shall have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the City for implementation. The project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 13.54 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
159
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

11. 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?
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant and disturbed within an urbanized portion of the city surrounded by commercial, public institution, and residential uses. The proposed Project would develop the site to provide a mixed-use development with 131 multi-family residential units, 10,550 SF of restaurant space, recreational areas, and associated parking. The Project would not physically divide an established community and will be consistent with the mixed-use character of the surrounding Downtown Redlands area.

In addition, the Project would not change roadways, pedestrian bridges, or install any infrastructure that would result in a physical division. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to physical division of 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The documents regulating land use for the Project site and immediate vicinity are the City’s General Plan and the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed Project’s relationship to these planning documents is described below.

General Plan. The Project site has a General Plan designation on Commercial. Additionally, the entire Project site is within the Transit Villages overlay. These General Plan designations do not have the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The proposed Project is a mixed-use development with a residential density of approximately 45.6 du/ac.

The Commercial designation allows for residential and mixed-use development, which the Project would be consistent with.

Table LU-1: General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies Project Consistency
Distinctive City
2-A.1 Provide for the equitable distribution of
public facilities and amenities, such as parks and
public facilities, throughout Redlands.

Consistent. The Project would provide enhanced
public sidewalks along Brookside Avenue and Eureka
Street, which would enhance pedestrian connectivity in
Downtown Redlands.
2-A.4 Maintain continuity in streetscape design
along major streets and avenues that traverse north
and south – California, Nevada, Alabama,
Tennessee, Orange, Church, University, Judson, and
Wabash; and those that traverse east and west –
Consistent. The Project would enhance the streetscape
designs, consistent with the City of Redlands’s General Plan, along W Citrus Avenue, Eureka Street, and
Brookside Avenue. The Project would provide ground
floor restaurant uses on the corner of Brookside
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
160
Pioneer, San Bernardino, Lugonia, Redlands
Boulevard, and Citrus.

Avenue and Eureka Street, which is consistent with
surrounding commercial uses along these streets.
2-A.8 Insist on high-quality development and
revitalization in older neighborhoods, such as the
Orange Street and Colton Avenue commercial
corridors, that is sensitive to historic architecture,
and provides a broad range of retail, restaurants,
professional services, and offices that meet the
community’s needs. Build a sense of community in
these commercial areas.

Consistent. The Project would develop the
underutilized, infill site with a mixed-use development.

Project development includes design features to ensure
sensitivity to surrounding historical architecture.
2-A.16 Use transit stations as focal points for
interconnectivity; plan to equally serve travelers
from north and south. Plan for each village around
the transit stations to have a unique character that
complements the adjacent neighborhoods.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be within the
Transit Villages Overlay. The Project would
complement surrounding commercial uses by providing
a mixed-use development with restaurants, residential
units, and public/private open space in the Downtown
Redlands area.
2-A.18 Promote a safe and secure environment
near transit stations through design, adjacent land
use considerations, public space programming, and
coordination with public safety providers.

Consistent. The Project would be reviewed by the City
of Redlands Police Department and City of Redlands
Fire Department to ensure that accurate safety
measures are provided, including security lighting and
parking lot lighting.
2-A.25 Require any application that would alter or
demolish an undesignated and unsurveyed resource
over 50-years-old to be assessed on the merits of
the structure, and to be approved by the Historic
and Scenic Preservation Commission.

Consistent. The Project site is currently vacant and
does not contain any buildings. As such, no buildings
over 50-years-old would be demolished.
2-A.34 Uphold the designation of the following
streets within the city as scenic highways, drives,
and historic streets. Special development
standards have been adopted by Resolution for
these streets. The streets are:
• Brookside Avenue, from Lakeside Avenue
to Eureka Street;
• Olive Avenue, from Lakeside Avenue to
Cajon Street;
• Center Street, from Brookside Avenue to
Crescent Avenue;
• Highland Avenue, from Serpentine Drive to
Cajon Street;
• Sunset Drive, from Serpentine Drive to
Edgemont Drive;
• Cajon Street;
• Mariposa Drive, between Halsey and
Sunset Drive; and
• Dwight Street, between Pepper Street and
Mariposa Drive.

In addition, consider designating the following
roads as scenic drives within the community as
neighborhood connectors and recreational routes
for drivers and bike riders.

Consistent. The Project is bounded by Brookside
Avenue, W Citrus Avenue, and Eureka Street.

Brookside Avenue is considered a historic street. The
proposed Project would be consistent with the
development standards set forth by the City and
would compliment the architecture of the historic U.S.

Post Office building across Brookside Avenue.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
161
• Riverview Drive along the Santa Ana River
Wash;
• Live Oak Canyon Road;
• San Timoteo Canyon Road;
• Sylvan Boulevard;
• Nevada Street, from the Orange Blossom
Trail to Barton Road;
• Pioneer Avenue, from River Bend Drive to
Judson Street; and
• Rural roads in Crafton.
2-A.35 Establish standards for the evaluation of
exterior lighting for new development and
redevelopment to ensure that exterior lighting
(except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other
similar safety lighting) is minimized, restricted to
low-intensity fixtures, shielded, and concealed to
the maximum feasible extent, and that highintensity perimeter lighting and lighting for sports and other private recreational facilities is limited to reduce light pollution visible from public viewing
areas.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
exterior lighting in the public open space and
surrounding Project buildings. The Project would be
conditioned to provide a photometric study. All
exterior lighting will be required to be properly
shielded and concealed to reduce light pollution.
2-A.71 Using an annually updated Archaeological
Resource Sensitivity Map, review proposed
development projects to determine whether a site
contains known prehistoric or historic cultural
resources and/or to determine the potential for
discovery of additional cultural resources.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 6.5, Cultural
Resources, a review of the SCCIC was conducted. The
Project site does not contain any known archaeological
or historical resources. However, there is a potential
that during ground disturbing activities,
archaeological resources are uncovered. As such, the
Project would incorporate MM CUL-1 requiring
archaeological monitoring. With implementation of
MM CUL-1, impacts would be less than significant.
2-A.72 Require that applicants for projects
identified by the South Coastal Information Center
as potentially affecting sensitive resource sites hire
a consulting archaeologist to develop an
archaeological resource mitigation plan and to
monitor the project to ensure that mitigation
measures are implemented.
2-A.73 Require that areas found during construction
to contain significant historic or prehistoric
archaeological artifacts be examined by a
qualified consulting archaeologist (RPA certified) or
historian for appropriate protection and
preservation.
2-A.74 Proactively coordinate with the area’s
native tribes in the review and protection of any
tribal cultural resources discovered at development
sites.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 6.18, Tribal
Cultural Resources, in compliance with AB 52
requirements, the City sent letters to multiple Native
American tribes. The San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians requested consultation regarding the
proposed Project. The San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians consulted with City on May 3, 2022 and stated
that the Project site is within Serrano ancestral
territory. However, the Tribe stated that due to the
nature and location of the Project site, the Tribe does not have any concerns with the Project’s
implementation. However, the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians requests that in addition to MM CUL-1,
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
162
the Tribe be notified of any incidental discoveries of
cultural resources and requests that a tribal monitor be retained if any incidental discoveries occur. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 has been included to require a
Monitoring and Treatment Plan and Native American
monitoring of excavation and grading activities if
cultural resources are unearthed by Project
construction activities. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in significant impacts to tribal cultural
resources.
2-A.75 Require, as a standard condition of
approval, that project applicants provide an
assessment as to whether grading for the proposed
project would impact underlying soil units or
geologic formations that have a moderate to high
potential to yield fossiliferous materials, prior to
issuance of a grading permit. If the potential for
fossil discovery is moderate to high, require
applicants to provide a paleontological monitor
during rough grading of the project.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 6.3.7, Geology and
Soils, soils underlying the Project site are mapped as
younger and older surficial deposits, more specifically very young wash deposits, active (Qvyw) and very old
axial-valley deposits, Unit 3 (Qvoa3). While the
younger deposits typically do not contain significant
vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, it is
likely there are underlaying sediments of older
Quaternary deposits. As such, MM PAL-1 is included to
require paleontological monitoring and preparation
of a PRMP. With implementation of MM PAL-1,
impacts would be less than significant.
2-A.76 Establish a procedure for the management
of paleontological materials found on-site during a
development, including the following provisions:
• If materials are found on-site during
grading, require that work be halted until
a qualified professional evaluates the find
to determine if it represents a significant
paleontological resource.
• If the resource is determined to be
significant, the paleontologist shall
supervise removal of the material and
determine the most appropriate archival
storage of the material.
• Appropriate materials shall be prepared,
catalogued, and archived at the
applicant’s expense and shall be retained
within San Bernardino County if feasible.
2-A.94 Encourage mixed-use projects Downtown
that integrate retail, restaurant, office, and
residential uses. Permit urban housing at a density
up to the High-Density Residential standard.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include the
development of a mixed-use development within the
Downtown Redlands area. The proposed buildings
would include 131 multi-family dwelling units and
10,550 SF of restaurant space. The Project would
result in a residential density of 45.6 dwelling units per acre, which would be above High-Density Residential
standard, but within the allowed density set forth by
the proposed Transit Villages Specific Plan.
2-A.97 Seek an increased presence of both
residents and activity in Downtown with new
development—particularly residential as part of
mixed-use development—as well as commercial,
entertainment, and cultural uses that serve both
residents and visitors.

Consistent. The proposed Project would develop the
site with 131 multi-family dwelling units and 10,550
SF of restaurant space. Additionally, the Project would include a 9,770 SF roof deck, a 7,380 SF pool plaza,
a 5,356 SF spa plaza, and a 527 SF upper lounge,
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
163
which would provide for increased residences and
activity in Downtown Redlands.
2-A.98 Promote a variety of housing types to
attract a spectrum of households to live Downtown.

Consistent. The proposed Project include 131 multifamily dwelling units including studios, 1-bedroom units, and 2-bedroom units to provide a variety of
housing within the Downtown Redlands area.

Prosperous Economy
3-A.10 Encourage mixed-use projects within the
Transit Villages that will attract a wide array of
uses including retail, restaurant, entertainment,
office, residential, and cultural offerings
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed Project
would develop the site with 131 multi-family dwelling
units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space. Additionally,
the Project would include a 9,770 SF roof deck, a
7,380 SF pool plaza, a 5,356 SF spa plaza, and a
527 SF upper lounge.
3-A.12 Encourage the location of commercial
centers according to function and scale – regional,
general, and neighborhood –so that centers of
different scales complement one another and each
is accessible to the primary market it is designed to
serve.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be scaled,
buffered, and designed to be compatible with the
surrounding commercial uses and historic architecture
throughout Redlands.
3-A.19 Support opportunities to enhance innovation
through business incubators, expanded broadband
and digital infrastructure, live-work spaces, mixeduse development, and policies that accommodate other industry innovations at the Redlands Municipal
Airport, along Colton Avenue and Orange Street,
Downtown, and in the Transit Villages.

Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed Project
would develop the site with 131 multi-family dwelling
units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space. Additionally,
the Project would include a 9,770 SF roof deck, a
7,380 SF pool plaza, a 5,356 SF spa plaza, and a
527 SF upper lounge.
3-A.34 Encourage and support unique specialty
retail and restaurant uses in the Downtown core.

Consistent. As discussed previously, the proposed
Project would develop the site with 131 multi-family
dwelling units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space.

Additionally, the Project would include a 9,770 SF
roof deck, a 7,380 SF pool plaza, a 5,356 SF spa
plaza, and a 527 SF upper lounge.
3-A.37 Ensure adequate parking Downtown and
efficiency in traffic flow to enable the continued
revitalization of the commercial core
Consistent. Street parking along the boundaries of
the Project. In addition, a parking garage would be
provided for residents and a surface parking lot
would be provided for restaurant guests.
3-A.39 Encourage and support the development of
additional housing Downtown to increase the vitality
and diversity of Downtown retail and services.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include 131
multi-family dwelling units which would provide
additional housing Downtown. As the Project proposes
a mixed-use development, it would provide diverse
uses to the Downtown area.
3-A.40 Enhance and expand the public spaces
Downtown (streetscapes, plazas, parks) to improve
the pedestrian experience.

Consistent. Sidewalks would be provided throughout
the Project and new sidewalks would be constructed
along Eureka Street and Brookside Avenue to improve
the pedestrian experience.

Livable Community
4-A.1 Promote the orderly development and
growth of urban areas in infill areas and the city
center while encouraging the ongoing cultivation of
agricultural land and the preservation of rural living
areas in the canyons, Crafton, and Mentone.

Consistent. The proposed Project would develop an
underutilized site within Downtown and would not
affect any agricultural land within the City as the
existing Project site is vacant and was previously
developed with public/institutional uses.
4-A.3 Ensure that infill development complements
existing development in use, design, and scale, and
Consistent. The proposed Project would be scaled
and designed to be compatible with the Downtown
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
164
that it supports the cohesion and integration of the
city’s development pattern.
architectural styles within the City including Spanish
Mission and 19th Century, and Mediterranean Style
Contemporary.
4-A.7 Promote a range of residential densities to
encourage a mix of housing types in varying price
ranges and rental rates.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include 131
multi-family dwelling units which would include studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. The proposed
dwelling units would vary in price range and provide
a mix of housing types.
4-A.8 Promote the development of a greater
variety of housing types, including single-family
homes on small lots, accessory dwelling units,
townhomes, lofts, live-work spaces, and senior and
student housing to meet the needs of future
demographics and changing family sizes.

Consistent. As mentioned above, the proposed Project
would include 131 multi-family dwelling units which
would include studios, one-bedroom, and twobedroom units. The proposed dwelling units would vary in price range and provide a mix of housing
types.
4-A.11 Ensure that opportunities exist for the
development of housing types that are affordable
to all segments of the Redlands community and are
distributed equitably throughout the community.

Consistent. As mentioned above, the proposed Project
would include 131 multi-family dwelling units which
would include studios, one-bedroom, and twobedroom units. The units would vary in price based on size and location.
4-A.12 Support new residential development in
Downtown, the Transit Villages, and other focused
infill sites accessible to transit and in central parts of the community.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include 131
multi-family dwelling units located Downtown which
would be accessible to transit.
4-A.20 Establish new neighborhood commercial
centers to serve the needs of community members in
areas planned to accommodate new growth, such
as Downtown and the Transit Village areas.

Consistent. The proposed Project would develop the
site with 131 multi-family dwelling units and 10,550
SF of restaurant space. Additionally, the Project would include a 9,770 SF roof deck, a 7,380 SF pool plaza,
a 5,356 SF spa plaza, and a 527 SF upper lounge.
4-A.87 Promote clusters of mixed-use development
along Redlands Boulevard near the Mixed-Use
Cores of the proposed Transit Villages, providing
opportunities for commercial, office, and residential
development consistent with the needs and
characteristics specific to each Transit Village.

Consistent. As mentioned previously, the proposed
Project would develop the site with 131 multi-family
dwelling units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space.

Additionally, the Project would include a 9,770 SF
roof deck, a 7,380 SF pool plaza, a 5,356 SF spa
plaza, and a 527 SF upper lounge.
4-A.95 Promote infill development to create a
continuous corridor of mixed-use and commercial
activity.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be an infill
development that would develop an underutilized site
with multi-family dwelling units, amenity areas, and
restaurant space.
4-A.97 Encourage the development of bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit access that reduces the need
for on-site parking. Improve the pedestrian
experience within these corridors through street
trees and landscaping.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
sidewalks and transit access that would increase
walkability and improve the pedestrian experience.
4-A.98 Create greater opportunity to intensify and
consolidate land uses on adjacent parcels and
connect existing assets through infill development.

Consistent. The proposed Project would consist of an
infill development that would develop an underutilized
site with a mixed-use development that would be
similar to the surrounding uses.
4-A.121 Encourage a centrally-located mix of uses
to promote activity and economic vitality.

Consistent. The proposed Project would develop the
site with 131 multi-family dwelling units and 10,550
SF of restaurant space. Additionally, the Project would include a 9,770 SF roof deck, a 7,380 SF pool plaza,
a 5,356 SF spa plaza, and a 527 SF upper lounge.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
165
4-A.150 Encourage the undergrounding of utilities
for all new development.

Consistent. The proposed Project would install new
onsite utilities that would be underground and connect
to existing lines.
4-A.157 Include the Police and Fire departments in
the review of new developments to provide
feedback on building and site design safety.

Consistent. The proposed Project would undergo plan
checks that would allow for Police and Fire review to
ensure building and site design safety requirements
are met.

Connected City
5-A.3 Ensure new street design and potential
retrofit opportunities for existing streets minimize
traffic volumes and/or speed as appropriate within
residential neighborhoods without compromising
connectivity for emergency vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, and users of mobility devices. This
could be accomplished through:
• Management and implementation of
complete street strategies, including
retrofitting existing streets to foster biking
and walking as appropriate;
• Short block lengths, reduced street widths,
and/or traffic calming measures; and
• Providing pedestrians and bicyclists with
options where motorized transportation is
prohibited.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed
to include sidewalks and bike lanes to facilitate
pedestrian and bicyclists with accessibility to and from the Project site. The Project would undergo City review which would ensure appropriate emergency vehicle
access and circulation is provided.
5-A.15 Maintain access for emergency vehicles and
services by providing two means of ingress/egress
into new communities, limitations on the length of culde-sacs, proper roadway widths and road grades, adequate turning radius, and other requirements
per the California Fire Code.

Consistent. The proposed Project would undergo City
review to ensure adequate emergency access is
provided throughout the Project site.
5-A.68 Provide for direct pedestrian paths and
access from new developments to the nearest public
transportation stop.

Consistent. The nearest Omnitrans bus stop is located
directly adjacent to the Project site on Brookside
Avenue. Sidewalks would be provided throughout the
site and along Eureka Street and Brookside Avenue
which would provide access to the bus stop and
connect to existing sidewalks.
5-A.73 Provide adequate parking availability
Downtown for residents, commuters, visitors, and
shoppers throughout the day.

Consistent. As mentioned previously, a parking
garage would be provided for residents and a
surface parking lot would be provided for restaurant
patrons and would be adequate for residents,
commuters, visitors, and shoppers.
5-A.75 Consider techniques to reduce the amount
of area in the Transit Villages occupied by parking,
especially for developments located within easy
walking distance of the Passenger Rail stations.

Consistent. As mentioned previously, a parking
garage would be provided for residents and a
surface parking lot would be provided for restaurant
patrons.
5-A.77 Encourage developers to meet their
minimum parking requirements via shared parking
between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, joint parking
districts, or off-site parking within a reasonable
walking time of 10 minutes or less.

Consistent. The proposed Project would undergo City
review to ensure that the Project meets the minimum
parking requirements. Parking would be included
onsite which would not result in off-site parking.

Vital Environment
6-A.35 Promote the use of Low Impact
Development strategies, BMPs, pervious paving
Consistent. The proposed Project would include low
impact development strategies, BMPs, pervious paving
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
166
materials, and on-site infiltration for treating and
reducing stormwater runoff before it reaches the
municipal stormwater system.
materials, and on-site infiltration for treating and
reducing stormwater runoff as discussed in the WQMP
included as Appendix H.
6-A.43 Ensure that post-development peak
stormwater runoff discharge rates do not exceed
the estimated pre-development rate. Dry weather
runoff from new development must not exceed the
pre-development baseline flow rate to receiving
waterbodies.

Consistent. A preliminary WQMP was prepared for
the Project and is included as Appendix H. The
hydrology report ensures that post-development peak
stormwater runoff discharge rates would not exceed
the estimated pre-development rates.

Healthy Community
7-A.35 Implement street design features that
facilitate walking and biking in both new and
established areas. Require a minimum standard of
these features for all new developments.

Consistent. Sidewalks would be provided throughout
the Project and new sidewalks would be constructed
along Eureka Street and Brookside Avenue to improve
the pedestrian experience.
7-A.46 Encourage the provision of bike lockers,
bike-sharing, and other methods of supporting
active transportation that can contribute to healthy
lifestyles.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include bike
racks and bike locker rooms throughout the Project site to support active transportation in the City.
7-A.75 Consider the impacts to health and safety
from potential flooding on future development in
flood-prone areas, including Downtown Redlands.

Ensure that new development follows appropriate
design standards.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to reduce
flooding impacts by including landscaping throughout
the site. Additionally, buildings would be designed to
be above the flood line in order to minimize impacts
related to flooding.
7-A.95 Coordinate with the Redlands Fire
Department and other fire prevention agencies to
review all applications for new development. The
Fire Department’s review should ensure compliance
with fire safety regulations and assess potential
impacts to existing fire protection services and the
need for additional and expanded services
Consistent. The proposed Project would undergo City
review which includes Redlands Fire Department
review. The Fire Department would ensure the Project
complies with all fire safety regulations.
7-A.107 Continue to restrict development within
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and along
other active and potentially active faults that have
not yet received Alquist-Priolo classification
Consistent. The proposed Project is not within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is approximately

2.7 miles to the northeast. In addition, the Project
would comply with Title 24 of the California Building
Code as included in Chapter 15.04 of the City’s
Municipal Code.
7-A.109 Require areas identified as having
significant liquefaction potential (including
secondary seismic hazards such as differential
compaction, lateral spreading, settlement, rock fall,
and landslide) to undergo geotechnical study prior
to development and to mitigate the potential
hazard to a level of insignificance or, if mitigation
is not possible, to preserve these areas as open
space or agriculture.

Consistent. A geotechnical report was prepared for
the proposed Project included as Appendix D. Based
on the geotechnical report, the proposed Project site is not located within an area identified as having
liquefaction potential.
7-A.114 For new construction and exterior building
expansions including multistory additions or lateral
expansions as deemed appropriate by the City
Building Department, require the preparation of a
geotechnical/soils/geologic report by a registered
civil geotechnical/soils engineer and a certified
engineering geologist. This report shall address
erodible or expansive and collapsible soils, existing
Consistent. As mentioned above, a geotechnical
report was prepared for the proposed Project
included as Appendix D. The geotechnical report
addresses geologic concerns on the site and provides
recommendations for Project grading and construction.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
167
or potential landslides, areas with unsuitable
percolation characteristics, large-scale subsidence,
non-rippable bedrock areas, ground motion
parameters, active/potentially active faulting,
liquefaction, and any other geotechnical concepts
as appropriate, and make recommendations for
mitigating any potential adverse impacts.
7-A.115 Require soil erosion mitigation during
construction.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
preparation of a SWPPP to mitigate any potential soil
erosion during construction.
7-A.123 Regulate development on sites with known
contamination of soil and groundwater to ensure
that construction workers, future occupants, the
public, and the environment are adequately
protected from hazards associated with
contamination. Work with State and local agencies
to encourage cleanup of such sites.

Consistent. The proposed Project would redevelop the
vacant site with a mixed-use development. As
discussed in Section 6.3.9, Hazards, the Project site
does not contain any contaminated soils.
7-A.124 Prohibit the development of projects that
would reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous
air emissions or handle extremely hazardous
substances within a quarter mile of a school.

Consistent. The proposed Project would develop 131
multi-family residential units and 10,550 SF of
restaurant space. The proposed Project would not emit
hazardous air emissions or handle extremely
hazardous substances. In addition, the closest schools
are McKinley Elementary School, located
approximately 0.33 miles south of the Project site, and Redlands High School, located approximately 0.69
miles east of the Project site.
7-A.135 Use the noise and land use compatibility
matrix (Table 7-10) and Future Noise Contours map
(Figure 7-9) as criteria to determine the
acceptability of a given land use, including the
improvement/construction of streets, railroads,
freeways, and highways. Do not permit new noisesensitive uses—including schools, hospitals, places of worship, and homes—where noise levels are
“normally unacceptable” or higher, if alternative
locations are available for the uses in the city.

Consistent. A noise study was prepared for the
proposed Project included as Appendix I. As
demonstrated by the Noise Impact Analysis, the
Project would satisfy the City of Redlands 45 dBA
CNEL residential interior noise level standards, which
would be verified as a part of the permit issuance and
building plan check process.
7-A.136 Require a noise analysis be conducted for
all development proposals located where projected
noise exposure would be other than “clearly” or
“normally compatible” as specified in Table 7-10
Consistent. As mentioned above, a noise study was
prepared for the proposed Project included as
Appendix I. As demonstrated by the Noise Impact
Analysis, the Project would satisfy the City of Redlands 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standards, which would be verified as a part of the permit
issuance and building plan check process.
7-A.137 For all projects that have noise exposure
levels that exceed the standards in Table 7-10,
require site planning and architecture to
incorporate noise-attenuating features. With
mitigation, development should meet the allowable
outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards in
Table 7-11. When a building’s openings to the
exterior are required to be closed to meet the
interior noise standard, mechanical ventilation shall
be provided.

Consistent. The proposed Project would not exceed
noise levels that exceed the standards set forth in
Table 7-10. As demonstrated by the Noise Impact
Analysis, the Project would satisfy the City of Redlands 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standards, which would be verified as a part of the permit
issuance and building plan check process.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
168
7-A.138 Continue to maintain performance
standards in the Municipal code to ensure that noise
generated by proposed projects is compatible with
surrounding land uses.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be consistent
with the noise standards set by the City’s Municipal
code. As discussed in Section 6.3.13, Noise, projected
construction and operational noise levels at
surrounding sensitive receptors, including nearby
residences, would be within allowable limits.
7-A.149 Ensure that construction and grading
projects minimize short-term impacts to air quality.
a. Require grading projects to provide a
stormwater pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) in compliance with City
requirements, which include standards for
best management practices (BMPs) that
control pollutants from dust generated by
construction activities and those related to
vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling,
and maintenance;
b. Require grading projects to undertake
measures to minimize mono-nitrogen oxides
(NOx) emissions from vehicle and
equipment operations; and
c. Monitor all construction to ensure that
proper steps are implemented.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 6.3.3, Air Quality, the proposed Project would minimize short-term
impacts to air quality and impacts related to air
quality during construction would be less than
significant. In addition, a SWPPP would be prepared
for the proposed Project in compliance with City
requirements.
7-A.153 Require applicants for sensitive land uses
(e.g. residences, schools, daycare centers,
playgrounds, and medical facilities) to site
development and/or incorporate design features
(e.g. pollution prevention, pollution reduction,
barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other
measures) to minimize the potential impacts of air
pollution on sensitive receptors.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
landscaping along the boundaries of the site and
throughout the Project. In addition, the proposed
mixed-use development would not exceed
operational Air Quality or GHG thresholds and would
not significantly impact air pollution on sensitive
receptors.

Sustainable Community
8-A.8 Implement and enforce California Code of
Regulations Title 24 building standards (parts 6 and
11) to improve energy efficiency in new or
substantially remodeled construction. Consider
implementing incentives for builders that exceed the
standards included in Title 24 and recognize their
achievements over the minimum standards
Consistent. The proposed Project would implement
Title 24 building standards and California Green
Building Standards as included in Chapter 15.16 of
the City’s Municipal Code.
8-A.9 Encourage the use of construction, roofing
materials, and paving surfaces with solar
reflectance and thermal emittance values per the
California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11
of the California Code of Regulations) to minimize
heat island effects.

Consistent. As discussed above, the Project would
comply with the California Green Building Standards
as included in Chapter 15.16 of the City’s Municipal
Code.
8-A.10 Integrate trees and shade into the built
environment to mitigate issues such as stormwater
runoff and the urban heat island effect.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include street
trees along the Project boundaries and throughout the
site.
8-A.25 Encourage water conservation through the
following strategies:
• Establish water and wastewater rates that
encourage conservation and provide for
system maintenance.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
landscaping and irrigation consistent with CalGreen
requirements which would be designed to reduce
water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and
recharge groundwater.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
169
• Update the landscape irrigation ordinance
to continue reducing the use of potable
water for landscape irrigation to
CALGreen requirements. All aspects of
landscaping from the selection of plants to
soil preparation and the installation of
irrigation systems should be designed to
reduce water demand, retain runoff,
decrease flooding, and recharge
groundwater.
• Establish incentives for use of water
efficient fixtures and fittings.
• Expand the current landscaping ordinance
for parking lots (Section 18.168.210 of the
Municipal Code) to encourage the use of
drought tolerant species.
• Promote the use of permeable surfaces for
hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as
driveways, streets, and parking lots should
be minimized so that land is available to
absorb stormwater, reduce polluted urban
runoff, recharge groundwater, and reduce
flooding.
• Incorporate water holding areas such as
creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds,
cisterns, and other features that serve to
recharge groundwater, reduce runoff,
improve water quality, and decrease
flooding into the urban landscape.
8-A.37 Promote design in new development that
incorporates space for recycling containers and
other waste diversion facilities.

Consistent. The proposed Project would include
recycling containers for onsite waste. Additionally, the Project would comply with AB 341 that requires
diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational
solid waste
8-A.39 Continue implementation and enforcement
of the California Building and Energy codes to
promote energy efficient building design and
construction.

Consistent. As mentioned previously, the proposed
Project would comply with the CBC and California
Green Building Standards Code as included in
Chapter 15.16 and 15.04.

Existing Plans, Programs, and Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
170
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

12. 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?
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?
No Impact. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs): MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence; MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence; MRZ-3:

An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated; and MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.

As shown in Figure 6-4 of the City’s General Plan, the Project site is located within MRZ-3. Additionally, the site has not been historically used for the extraction of mineral resources. Therefore, development of the site would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and no impacts would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed in Response 6.3.12(a), no known valuable mineral resources exist on or near the Project site, and no mineral resource extraction activities occur on the site. In addition, the Project site has not been historically used for mineral resource extraction. Therefore, no impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, would occur as a result of Project implementation.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
171
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

13. 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?
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?
The discussion below is based on the City Center Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Appendix I.

Noise Element of the General Plan
The City’s General Plan Noise Element (Section 7.5) establishes limitations on sound levels to be received by various land uses. New development may cause existing noise‐sensitive land uses to be affected by noise generated from new developments, or it may locate a sensitive use in such a place that it is adversely affected by noise. Of particular attention to the City of Redlands are noise levels near loud transportation corridors, including roadways, the airport, railways. The Noise Element also states that typical noise standards for sensitive land uses include 60 dBA CNEL for exterior areas and 45 dBA CNEL for interior areas for single family, duplex, and multiple family land uses.

Municipal Code
Section 8.06.070 and Section 8.06.080 of the City’s Municipal Code outline the exterior and interior noise standards for stationary noise sources, as shown in Table N-1 below.

Table N-1: Significance Thresholds
Receiving Land Use Category Exterior
Time
Period
Exterior
Noise Level
- dBA
Interior
Time
Period
Interior
Noise Level
- dBA
Residential districts; public space; institutional
10:00 P.M.
- 7:00 A.M.
50 dBA Leq Anytime 45 dBA Leq
7:00 A.M. -
10:00 P.M.
60 dBA Leq
Commercial 10:00 P.M.
- 7:00 A.M.
60 dBA Leq Anytime 50 dBA
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
172
7:00 A.M. -
10:00 P.M.
65 dBA Leq
Source: City of Redlands’s Municipal Code Sections 8.06.070 and 8.06.080 In addition, it is unlawful to cause the noise level on any residential property to exceed these interior noise standards:

1. For a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;

2. Plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or

3. Plus 10 dB(A) for any period of time.

Section 8.06.120 of the City’s Municipal Code states that the noise standards shall not apply to noise sources associated with new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation, or grading of any private property, provided such activities take place between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. In addition, all motorized equipment used in such activities are required to be equipped with functioning mufflers.

Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix I), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at six locations in the Project study area. The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations, as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. See Figure N-1, Noise Measurement Locations.

A description of the locations and the existing noise levels are provided in Table N-2.

Table N-2: 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located north of the Project site near singlefamily residence at 321 West State Street. 49.3 48.0 L2 Located southeast of the Project site near singlefamily residence at 124 West Vine Street. 58.8 59.4 L3 Located south of the Project site near Cortner
Chapel at 221 Brookside Avenue. 55.3 53.8
L4 Located west of the Project site near single-family
residence at 18 Kendall Street. 52.7 56.5
1 See Figure N-1 for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix I
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix I)
Sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site are shown in Figure N-2, Receiver Locations.

R1: Location R1 represents existing noise sensitive residence at 321 West State Street, approximately 71 feet north of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
173
R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 124 West Vine Street, approximately 370 feet southeast of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive Cortner Chapel at 221 Brookside Avenue, approximately 135 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 11204 Lilac Avenue, approximately 11 feet west of the Project site. Receiver R4 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
174
Figure N-1 Noise Measurement Locations
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
175
Figure N-2: Receiver Locations
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
176
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
As described above, General Plan and Municipal Codes do not identify specific construction noise level limits and Section 8.06.120 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. The Project would comply with the City’s construction hours regulations, as verified by standard City Conditions of Approval. Neither the City’s General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase.

Thus, a construction-related noise level threshold is applied from the Criteria for Recommended Standard:

Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. To evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations a construction-related NIOSH noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used (Urban Crossroads, 2022).

The highest construction noise levels are expected to occur when the temporary construction activities take place at the closest point for the center of Project construction activity to each of any nearby sensitive receiver locations. Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels, as shown on Table N3. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
The noise generated from construction of the Project has been estimated using reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, which are listed in Table N-4, below. For each phase of construction, the nearest piece of equipment was analyzed at the closest distance of the proposed activity to the nearest sensitive receptor. Construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.

Table N-3: Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 77
Hauling Trucks 71 77
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading
Graders 79
79 Excavators 64
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
177
Compactors 67
Building
Construction
Cranes 67
Tractors 72 72
Welders 65
Paving
Pavers 70
Paving Equipment 69 70
Rollers 69
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 67
Air Compressors 67 67
Generator Sets 67
1 Update of noise database for prediction of noise on construction and open site expressed in hourly average Leq based on estimated usage factor.

Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix I)
The noise volumes in Table N-3 were applied to the locations of the closest sensitive receptors, the closest of which is R4, the backyard of the existing residence on Kendall Street. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location. As shown in Table N-4, the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 61.5 to 76.1 dBA Leq, which would satisfy the 85 dBA Leq significance threshold. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise would be less than significant at all noise sensitive receiver locations.

Table N-4: Construction Equipment Noise Level Compliance Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 69.1 71.1 64.1 62.1 59.1 71.1
R2 59.5 61.5 54.5 52.5 49.5 61.5
R3 65.9 67.9 60.9 58.9 55.9 67.9
R4 74.1 76.1 69.1 67.1 64.1 76.1
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Figure N-2. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix I.

Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix I)
Operations
Development of the proposed Project would result in a mixed-use development with 131 multi-family dwelling units, amenity areas, and 10,550 SF of restaurant space. Potential long-term noise impacts associated with Project operation would include exterior traffic noise, operational noise, and stationary equipment noise.

Traffic Noise
The Project would generate 1,751 daily trips, including 143 trips during the AM peak hour and 133 trips during the PM peak hour (EPD 2022). The noise generated from these vehicular trips has been identified through utilization of the FHWA Roadway Noise Model, and a comparison of noise generated by traffic volumes with and without the Project is provided in Table N-5.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
178
Neither the General Plan nor Municipal Code quantifies what constitutes a significant degradation of the future acoustic environment. Therefore, thresholds from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) have been utilized, which identifies noise impacts by comparing the existing noise levels and the future noise levels with the proposed Project. Based on the FTA guidance, a substantial increase in ambient noise from vehicular traffic could occur when the noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, etc.) are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates an increase of 3 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase; or when noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates 2 dBA CNEL or greater noise level increase.

Table N-5 shows that in the 2025 buildout year, the cumulative plus Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.8 dBA CNEL. Therefore, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

Table N-5: Existing Cumulative With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
NoiseSensitive
Land
Use?
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Eureka St. n/o Redlands
Blvd. Non-Sensitive 67.9 68.4 0.5 No 5.0 No
2 Eureka St. s/o Redlands
Blvd. Non-Sensitive 67.0 67.8 0.8 No 5.0 No
3 Eureka St. s/o Citrus Ave. Sensitive 60.5 60.8 0.3 Yes 3.0 No 4 Brookside Ave. e/o Eureka St. Non-Sensitive 65.7 66.4 0.7 No 5.0 No 5 Brookside Ave. w/o Eureka St. Sensitive 66.3 66.4 0.1 Yes 1.5 No 6 Brookside Ave. e/o Center St. Sensitive 65.6 65.7 0.1 Yes 1.5 No 7 Redlands Blvd. w/o Eureka St. Non-Sensitive 70.2 70.3 0.1 No 3.0 No 8 Redlands Blvd. e/o Eureka St. Non-Sensitive 70.1 70.3 0.2 No 3.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix I)
Operational Noise
It is expected the onsite Project-related noise sources would include sources such as roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor gatherings, and outdoor pool/spa activity. Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations, operational source noise levels were calculated that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.06.070 does not allow exterior noise to substantially exceed 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and 60 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As shown in Table N-6, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.5 to 43.6 dBA Leq. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 37.1 to

42.4 dBA Leq.

Table N-6: Project Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?3
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
179
R1 42.5 41.1 60 50 No No
R2 38.5 37.1 60 50 No No
R3 42.0 40.8 60 50 No No
R4 43.6 42.4 60 50 No No
1 See Figure N-2 for the receiver locations.
2 City of Redlands Municipal Code, Section 8.06.070 (Appendix 3.1) 3 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis, 2022 (Appendix I)
Table N-6 shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project would satisfy the City’s 60 dBA Leq daytime and 50 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity. Noise activity associated with the trash enclosures, courtyard, paseo, and pool/spa are expected to be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, included as Appendix I includes the detailed noise analysis of operational noise levels from each noise source and activity, as well as model inputs including the existing perimeter walls used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

To describe the Project operational noise level contributions, the Project operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations to determine the Project increase. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.

As indicated on Tables N-7 and N-8 the Project would generate an unmitigated daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.8 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Projectrelated operational noise level contributions the increases at the sensitive receiver locations would be less than significant.

Table N-7 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Contributions Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 42.5 L1 49.3 50.1 0.8 5.0 No
R2 38.5 L2 58.8 58.8 0.0 5.0 No
R3 42.0 L2 58.8 58.9 0.1 5.0 No
R4 43.6 L3 55.3 55.6 0.3 5.0 No
1 See Figure N-2 for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table N-6 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure N-1 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table N-2. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.

Source: Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix I
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
180
Table N-8 Nighttime Operational Noise Level Contributions Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 41.1 L1 48.0 48.8 0.8 5.0 No
R2 37.1 L2 59.4 59.4 0.0 5.0 No
R3 40.8 L2 59.4 59.5 0.1 5.0 No
R4 42.4 L3 53.8 54.1 0.3 5.0 No
1 See Figure N-2 for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table N-7 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure N-2 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table N-2 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.

Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix I)
Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.

The Project is required to satisfy the City of Redlands 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standards as a part of the permit issuance and building plan check process. Additionally, operational noise from HVAC units would be required to comply with the Municipal Code Section 8.06.070, which does not allow exterior noise to substantially exceed 50 dBA for residential uses and 60 dBA for commercial uses between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and 60 dBA for residential uses and 65 dBA for commercial uses between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Compliance with the Municipal Code would ensure that a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would not occur, and noise related to HVAC units would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The proposed Project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are:
• Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. • Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes.

Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem.

Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Construction activities that would have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration within the Project site include grading.

Table N-9 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. The City SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
181
of Redlands Municipal Code, Section 8.06.020, defines the vibration perception threshold as 0.01 inches per second (in/sec) RMS. Based on FTA methodology, an RMS of 0.01 in/sec equates to 0.04 in/sec PPV.

Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the FTA, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet.

Table N-9 shows the highest construction vibration levels in PPV are expected to range from 0.019 to 0.305.

Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.040 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will exceed the vibration thresholds at R4, which represents the residential Properties southwest of the Project site. As shown in Table N-9, smaller dozer would result in 0.01 PPV in/sec, which would not exceed the vibration limit. Therefore, MM N-1 is included to require Project construction plans to limit the equipment that would operate along the southwestern property line. Areas where MM N-1 applies are shown in Figure N-3. Furthermore, construction at the Project site would be restricted to daytime hours consistent with City’s Municipal Code requirements, thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during the sensitive nighttime hours. As such, with implementation of MM N-1, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-9 Project Construction Vibration Levels
Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3
Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer
JackhammerLoaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 71' 0.001 0.007 0.016 0.019 0.019 0.04 No
R2 370' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.04 No
R3 135' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.04 No
R4 11' 0.010 0.120 0.260 0.305 0.305 0.04 Yes
1 Construction receiver locations are shown in Figure N-2. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment. 4 City of Redlands Municipal Code Section 8.06.020
5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2022 (Appendix I)
Operation
The proposed mixed-use Project would not include any equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large industrial projects. While groundborne vibration within and surrounding the Project site may occur from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and delivery trucks) on the nearby local roadways, this would not result in significant vibration impacts to the proposed Project or surrounding sensitive uses. As such, vibration impacts associated with operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
182
Figure N-3: Mitigation Area
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
183
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?
No Impact. The proposed Project is not within an airport land use plan. The proposed Project is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest from the Redlands Municipal Airport; however, the Project site is located outside of the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Redlands Municipal Airport. In addition, there are no private airstrips within the Project’s vicinity. Therefore, proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. No impacts would occur from aircraft noise.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP N-1: The Project plans shall state the Project is required to comply with construction hours of operation outlined in Section 8.06.120 of the City’s Municipal Code; construction activities shall take place between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. In addition, all motorized equipment used in such activities are required to be equipped with functioning mufflers.

Mitigation Measures
MM N-1: Large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 30 feet of the southwest Property line, as shown on N-3. Instead, smaller, rubbertired bulldozers (less than 80,000 pounds) shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
184
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

14. 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?
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop the Project site to provide 131 multifamily dwelling units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space. Additionally, the Project would include a 9,770 SF roof deck, 7,380 SF pool plaza, 5,356 SF spa plaza, and 527 SF upper lounge. According to the City of Redlands General Plan EIR, the city has an average of 2.65 persons per household and is expected to by 4,355 residential units and 10,964 persons by 2035 with buildout of the General Plan, according. However, this 2.65 person per household ratio considers all housing types within the city, including single-family residences, which consists of 68 percent of the housing within the city and typically attracts and accommodates larger household sizes.

The proposed Project’s unit mix consists of 40 studios, 82 one-bedroom units, and 9 two-bedroom units. The size of the units would range size from 517 SF studios to approximately 1,252 SF two-bedroom units. These are smaller multi-family units that would not accommodate or attract large households. The proposed unit mix and smaller unit size of the Project suggests an orientation towards singles and young families that differ significantly in demographic features from the relatively large average Redlands household size of approximately 2.65 members per household.

Therefore, a more accurate calculation of the anticipated population that would be generated by the proposed Project was determined by utilizing U.S. Census data for a market area that represents similar multi-family residential housing types and costs of rent. As shown in Table POP-1, at full occupancy the Project would house approximately 191 residents.

Table POP-1: Anticipated Residents at Full Occupancy
Unit Type Number of
Units
Persons per
Unit1
Total
Residents
Studio 40 1.31 53
One-bedroom 82 1.42 117
Two-bedroom 9 2.26 21
Total 131 - 191
1Persons per unit retrieved from Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2019 Microdata Sample (PUMS)
The 191 residents at full occupancy would constitute a 0.18 percent increase over the 2020 City of Redlands population of 73,168 (US Census). It is projected that the city will experience a population increase of approximately 11,300 residents or approximately 16.3 percent from 2016 to 2045. Thus, the population SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
185
of the Project would be within the projected population growth, based on the US Census and within the growth projected in the City’s General Plan EIR. Similarly, SCAG anticipates the number of housing units throughout the County would increase by 6,400 units or approximately 26.2 percent from 2016 to 2045.

Thus, the 131 new multi-family units would also be within the SCAG projected growth. The Project would also help provide the needed numbers and types of housing units identified in the City’s 2013-2021 Housing Element as well as those included in the draft 2021-2019 Housing Element Update.

Based on employee generation factors utilized by SCAG, the Project would result in 1 employee for every 124 square feet of retail restaurant space. Thus, the proposed 10,550 SF of restaurant retail space, would generate approximately 85 employees at full occupancy of the restaurant retail space. As of 2017, the City of Redlands had approximately 41,609 jobs (SCAG 2019). Therefore, the additional 85 employment opportunities would be 0.2 percent of the existing jobs within the city; and therefore, would not result in induced unplanned employment growth. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, as no housing currently exists onsite. The Project site would construct 131 multi-family dwelling units. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
186
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

15. 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?
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Fire Protection – Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection services in the Project area are provided by the Redlands Fire Department (RFD). The Fire Department provides services including fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical services, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response. The Fire Department consists of approximately 52 total sworn personnel, (including 44 firefighter/paramedics and 16 firefighter/EMTs) and covers an area of 37 square miles.

RFD operates four fire stations in the city and has mutual aid agreements with Loma Linda Stations 251 and 252 (to the west) and San Bernardino County Fire (Mentone Station 9) to the east, City of San Bernardino Station 228 and 231 to the northwest), which are facilitated by a consolidated dispatch center operated by CONFIRE. CONFIRE is a multi-agency organization that functions as the result of a 25-year Joint Powers Agreement for the collective provision of fire, rescue, and emergency medical dispatch services.

There are three fire stations within 2 miles of the site, which include the following:

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
187
• Station 261 located at 525 East Citrus Avenue, is approximately 0.6 roadway miles from the Project site. Station 261 was originally built in 1948 but was remodeled in 2002. The station provides daily staffing of 7 personnel with a medic fire engine, medic fire truck, battalion vehicle, an OES, and a reserve engine (Citygate).
• Station 264 is located at 1270 West Park Avenue, approximately 1.1 roadway miles from the Project site. The station consists of a portable building that was installed in 2009 and is staffed with 5 personnel with a medic fire engine, medic squad truck, reserve medic squad truck, and a brush engine (Citygate).
• Station 263 is located at 10 West Pennsylvania Avenue, approximately 2.0 roadway miles from the Project site. This station was developed in 1986 is staffed with three personnel daily with a medic fire engine, water tender, incident support vehicle, and a reserve engine (Citygate).

The City currently has plans to acquires sites for and to construct two new fire stations (Stations 265 and 266) in different parts of the City and relocate Station 264 based on the annual increase in calls for service and location of service need. Thus, future facilities are planned by the City to expand service coverage in other portions of the City, and would reduce the geographical coverage of the existing stations.

In 2021, RFD received 11,836 calls for service and had 72,933 residents (California Department of Finance), which results in 0.16 calls per resident. The calls for service increased by an average by 6.65 percent in the three years between October 2016 and September 2019. Additionally, approximately 45 percent of the calls for service occur simultaneously. A majority of the increased calls were for emergency medical services (Citygate), which is consistent with the City’s Fire Department Assessment and Deployment Study (2020) that details that 63 percent of service calls in 2018/2019 were for emergency medical services. The RFD currently has a goal response time of 7 minutes, 90 percent of the time (Citygate, 2020).

The Project site is located within 2 miles of three existing fire stations. Per the Redlands Fire Department Deployment/Assessment Study, the Project site is within the 4-minute response time with congestion area (Citygate, 2020), and in the area that would meet the response time goal of 7 minutes, 90 percent of the time.

The proposed Project develop 131 multi-family residences and 10,550 SF of restaurant space on the site.

Implementation of the Project would be required to adhere to California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) included in Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates fire-resistant construction, emergency planning, fire protection system, and appropriate emergency access throughout the site. As part of the permitting process, the Project plans would be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department and the Building Division (part of the Development Services Department) to ensure that the Project plans meet the fire protection requirements for fire safety. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with City fire suppression standards including the current California Fire Code, which evaluates the Project for adequate emergency access. Thus, fire and emergency access hazards resulting in a need for additional fire services would not occur.

As described in the Section 14, Population and Housing, the Project would result in 191 new residents, which is a 0.18 percent increase in the City’s population and within the City’s projected growth. The additional population would generate an incremental increase in calls for fire and emergency medical services. Because the Project site is within 2.0 miles of three existing fire stations, the Project would be served by the existing stations, and the Project would not result in the need to construct or expand a new fire station. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Should the calls for service from the Project coincide with call for service from another parcel within in the same fire station response area, an increase in response times could occur. However, to reduce cumulative impacts related to fire and emergency medical services, such as response times, the General Plan EIR (page

3.13-27) directs that fire protection equipment and staffing be augmented by the City development impact fees that all development projects are required to pay. Also, as set forth in the General Plan’s “Principles of Managed Development,” and in the City’s resolution establishing development impact fees, Resolution No. 7951, adopted April 2, 2019), the fees are to expand fire protection and emergency medical staffing and SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
188
equipment provided from existing stations and better accommodate simultaneous service calls. Further, Chapter 3.60 of the City’s Municipal Code requires a public facility fee to be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit to fund the City’s Public Facility Program, which includes a budget for RFD facilities.

Thus, the project would be required to pay the existing City fees to be used exclusively for the planned expansion and improvement of fire protection and emergency medical services provided by RFD.

Overall, because there are three existing fire stations within 2.0 miles of the Project site, the area has adequate nearby fire facilities to serve the proposed Project in addition to the existing service needs of the area; and construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required as a result of the proposed Project. Thus, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Also, cumulative impacts related to the expanded fire protection facilities and staffing needed from population growth are planned to be augmented through development fees that are required by Chapter 3.60 of the Municipal Code and the General Plan EIR prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Police Protection – Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Redlands receives public safety services from the Redlands Police Department. The main police station is located at 1270 West Park Avenue, with four other divisions located citywide. The Police Department personnel is made up of approximately 100 volunteers, 80 sworn officers and 58 full and part-time civilians, resulting in a service level of 1.12 officers per 1,000 residents. In 2020, the Department had an average response time of 9.08 minutes for Priority one police service calls and a service ratio of 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents. Although there are no industry standards for response time to emergency calls, according to the Redlands Police Department, a response time of 4.5 minutes is desirable in a city of this size.

Due to the increase in onsite people that would occur from implementation of the Project, an incremental increase in demand for police protection would occur. As described previously, the residential population of the Project site at full occupancy would be approximately 191 residents and based on the Police Department’s staffing of 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents, the proposed Project would not require an additional officer.

Since the need by the Project is less than one officer, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities and development impact fees would contribute to the cost of hiring one additional officer. Thus, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities would not occur. In addition, the Project Applicant/Developer would be required to pay any applicable development impact fees pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code, included as PPP PS-3 below. Therefore, impacts related to police services would be less than significant.

Schools – Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD), which serves Redlands and the surrounding communities of Mentone and Crafton, as well as Loma Linda and the eastern portion of Highland. There are currently 17 elementary schools, five middle schools, and six high schools within the RUSD. The schools that serve the site are listed below:
• McKinley Elementary School located at 645 W Olive Avenue, which is 0.33 miles from the Project site.
• Cope Middle School located at 1000 W Cypress Avenue, which is 0.8 miles from the Project site. • Redlands High School located at 840 E Citrus Avenue, which is 0.85 miles from the Project site.

The Project would develop 131 multi-family residences. The RUSD student generation rate for multi-family residences is 0.21 students per residence for grades K-6; 0.06 students per residence for grades 7-8; and

0.09 students per residence for grades 9-12. As shown in Table PS-1 below, based on the existing capacity of the schools serving the Project area, and the number of students that would be generated by the Project, the existing elementary, middle, and high school would be able to serve the Project.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
189
Table PS-1: School Capacity and Project Generated Students School Enrollment
Capacity
2021-2022
Enrollment1
Existing
Remaining
Capacity
Students
Generated by
Project
Remaining
Capacity with
Project
McKinley
Elementary
School
511 339 172 28 144
Cope Middle
School
1,507 1,287 220 8 212
Redlands High
School
3,930 2,233 1,697 12 1,685
1 Source: City of Redlands Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report of the Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, Table 3.13- 3: Redlands Unified School District Enrollment; 2020-2021 Enrollment Data obtained from the California Department of Education, Accessed:
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
As shown, the schools serving the Project have additional capacity to serve the population increase associated with the proposed Project. In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts.

Therefore, with implementation of PPP PS-1, which would require the payment of applicable school development impact fees pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.

Parks – Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 6.3.16(a) below, according to the City’s General Plan Parks and Recreational Open Space Element (Section 7.2), there are several different kinds of parks in Redlands, including community parks, neighborhood parks, and pocket parks. The City establishes a parkland/recreational space standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, consistent with State law. The current (as of 2016) parkland exceeds this standard with a total parkland area of 424.2 acres. The parks closest to the Project site include the following:
• Smiley Park located at 101 Parkwood Drive, which is 0.3 miles from the Project site. This park is

9.42 acres and contains the following facilities: trails, benches, restrooms, and open grassy areas. • Jennie Davis Park located at 899 Redlands Boulevard, which is 0.5 miles from the Project site. This park is 5.2 acres and contains the following facilities: picnic tables, seating, open grassy area, and a playground.
• Sylvan Park located at 601 N University St, which is 1 mile from the Project site. This park is 23 acres and contains the following facilities: baseball/softball fields, horseshoe pits, lawn bowling, open grassy areas, picnic areas, playground equipment, restrooms, shuffleboards, a stage/bandstand area, trails/nature study, and volleyball.

The Project would develop a new mixed-use development which would result in 131 new multi-family residences and an increase in the use of public parks. The Project would result in a demand for .96 acres of parkland/open space. The proposed Project would include 23,467 SF (0.53 acre) of common open space which includes landscaped plazas, courtyards, a private pool, and private spa. A portion of the Project’s Park demand would be met onsite with the provision of 23,467 SF of open space area, consisting of a pool, sitting areas, garden areas, walkways, and courtyards. In addition, the Project would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 3.32, which requires that open space and parks fees shall be collected from all applicants for development projects (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used for the purpose of acquiring, developing, improving and expanding open space SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
190
and park lands identified in the City's open space and park lands acquisition and development capital improvement plan in accordance with the amounts established by resolution of the City Council. The city currently has over 424.2 acres of parkland, with 37.6 acres within one mile of the Project site. Therefore, with implementation of PPP PS-2, which would require the payment of applicable park related fees, impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios would be less than significant.

Other Services – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop the Project site with 131 residential units. The new residences would result in a limited incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the Project area is already served by other services and the Project would result in a limited increase in residences, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Developer shall pay applicable school development impact fees levied by the Redlands Unified School District pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407).

PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a Condition of Approval of a tentative map, the Developer shall pay applicable park related fees pursuant to Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.32.

PPP PS-3: Development Impact Fees. As a standard requirement and included as a Condition of Approval for the Project, and prior to issuance of any building permits for the Project, the Developer shall pay all applicable City of Redlands Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code and/or adopted fee schedules.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
191
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

16. 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?
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan Parks and Recreational Open Space Element (Section 7.2), there are several different kinds of parks in Redlands, including community parks, neighborhood parks, and pocket parks. In addition to parks, the City of Redlands contains various recreational facilities, including the Redlands Community Center, the Community Senior Center, the Joslyn Senior Center, neighborhood community gardens, and the Carriage House. This also includes large open spaces, including the San Timoteo Canyon, Live Oak Canyon, and the Crafton Hills, which also provide recreational space.

The City establishes a parkland/recreational space standard of five acres per 1,000 residents, consistent with State law. As discussed previously, the Project would develop a new mixed-use development including a 131-unit multi-family residential development, which would result in 191 new residents and a modest increase in the use of public parks. Based on this formula, the Project would result in a demand for 0.96 acres of parkland/recreational space. The Project would be required to pay parkland fees pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 3.32, which requires that open space and parks fees shall be collected from all applicants for development projects (included as PPP PS-2), which would be used for the purpose of acquiring, developing, improving and expanding open space and park lands identified in the City's open space and park lands acquisition and development capital improvement plan in accordance with the amounts established by resolution of the City Council. In addition, as described previously, the city currently has over 424.2 acres of parkland, with 37.6 acres within one mile of the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to the increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.
b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include 23,467 SF of common open space area including recreational community amenities consisting of a pool, spa, sitting areas, and gathering spaces for use by residents within the complex. In addition, private patio space would be available to residents in designated floor plans. The impacts of development of the common open space areas are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this document. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the Project, SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
192
including open space areas, are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections.

In addition, as discussed above, the Project would contribute park development fees pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-2: Park Fees. Listed previously in Section 15, Public Services.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
193
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

17. 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?
The discussion below is based on the VMT Screening Analysis for the City Center Project, prepared by EPD Solutions, April 26, 2022 (Appendix J).
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction of a mixed-use development with 131 multi-family dwelling units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area.

A trip generation was prepared for the Project by EPD Solutions (Appendix J). As shown on Table T-1, the mixed-use development would generate approximately 1,751 weekday daily trips, with 143 trips produced in the weekday AM peak hour and 133 trips produced in the weekday PM peak hour.

Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Multi-Family
Housing1
23 18 42 16 22 38 622
High-Turnover SitDown Restaurant2
55 45 101 58 37 95 1,129
Project Trip
Generation 79 64 143 74 59 133 1,751
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 221-Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise). Close to rail transit.
2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Cod 932- HighTurnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Source: EPD Solutions (Appendix J)
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
194
The Project has been designed to construct onsite roadway improvements consistent with the City guidelines.

Additionally, the Project would pay Development Impact Fees as conditioned by the City. The fees shall be collected and utilized as needed by the City to construct the improvements necessary to maintain the required Level of Service (LOS) and build or improve roads to their build-out level.

Alternative Transportation
The proposed Project would construct onsite sidewalks and provide new sidewalks on Eureka Street and Brookside Avenue to provide access to the Arrow Line located approximately 0.26-mile from the Project site. Additionally, the Project would not impact the existing bicycle lane on Brookside Avenue. As such, the proposed Project would enhance pedestrian and bicycle access in the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with alternative transportation and Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013 and changed the way that public agencies evaluate transportation impact under CEQA. A key element of this law is the elimination of using auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. The legislative intent of SB 743 was to "more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions." According to the law, "traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" within CEQA transportation analysis.

SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., a city’s General Plan), studies, congestion management and transportation improvements, but these metrics may no longer constitute the basis for transportation impacts under CEQA analysis as of July 1, 2020.

For example, in the City, the General Plan identifies LOS as being a required analysis, and even though it will no longer be a requirement of CEQA, unless the General Plan is amended, LOS will continue to be analyzed as part of project review independent of CEQA analysis.

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) updated the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Based on input from the public, public agencies, and various organizations, OPR recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) be the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA.

The City of Redlands has prepared Draft VMT analysis guidelines, which were accepted by the City Council on July 21, 2020; therefore, the City’s adopted guidelines were consulted to determine whether a VMT analysis would be required for the Project. The City Guidelines provides details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a lessthan-significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis. Screening thresholds are broken into the following three types:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Project Type Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
195
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

As previously discussed throughout this document, the Project site is located within 0.5-mile of an existing major transit stop, and along a high-quality transit corridor. Additionally, the Project would meet the aforementioned secondary criteria of having a FAR of greater than 0.75, the parking supplied by the Project is not in excess of the City’s parking code, the Project is consistent with the adopted RTP/SCS, and the Project is not replacing affordable residential units with a smaller number of market rate residential units.

Additionally, the Project would meet the Step 3 VMT Screening criteria as it would result in less than 3,000 MTCO2e of GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would meet the VMT Screening Criteria, and it is presumed that the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via ingress and egress driveways connecting to Brookside Avenue, Eureka Street, and West Citrus Avenue. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area. The Project would not include any offsite street improvements, and onsite driveways would be reviewed by the City to ensure they meet City design requirements. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of Brookside Avenue, Eureka Street, and West Citrus Avenue for a short period of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
Project parking lots would be accessed from West Citrus Avenue, Brookside Avenue, and Eureka Street. The construction permitting process would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project area, and would provide routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project area.

Roadways in the vicinity (including West Citrus Avenue, Brookside Avenue, and Eureka Street) would normally remain open and accessible to all vehicle traffic including emergency responders, except for possibly interim or partial closures for construction activities for a few hours or days with a City permit. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
196
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
197
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

18. 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 21074 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)?
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?
AB 52 Requirements
The Project would be required to comply with AB 52 regarding tribal consultation. Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” In compliance with these requirements, on April 8, 2022, the City sent letters to the following Native American tribes that may have knowledge regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity. • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested consultation via email regarding the proposed Project.

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians consulted with City on May 3, 2022, via email, and stated that the Project site is within Serrano ancestral territory. However, the Tribe stated that due to the nature and location of the Project site, the Tribe does not have any concerns with the Project’s implementation. However, the Tribe requested inclusion of mitigation for incidental discoveries of cultural resources.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
198
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)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 6.3.5 of this document, Response

6.3.5(a), the records search revealed that there are no known cultural resources within the Project site.

However, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requests that in addition to MM CUL-1, the Tribe be notified of any incidental discoveries of cultural resources and requests that a tribal monitor be retained if any incidental discoveries occur. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 has been included to require a Monitoring and Treatment Plan and Native American monitoring of excavation and grading activities if cultural resources are unearthed by Project construction activities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k).
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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, to avoid potential adverse effects to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 has been included to require a Monitoring and Treatment Plan and Native American monitoring of excavation and grading activities if cultural resources are unearthed by Project construction activities. No information has been provided to the Lead Agency indicating any likelihood of uncovering tribal cultural resources on the Project site, there are no known tribal cultural resources on or adjacent to the Project site, and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated.

The following mitigation measure is included in the event of any inadvertent discoveries during construction activities.

Additionally, as described previously California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, included as PPP CUL-1, requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, PPP CUL-1, and MM CUL-1, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and shall 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, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist, in coordination with the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for the remainder of the Project, should the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians elect to place a monitor onsite.

Any and all archaeological and cultural documents created as part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Applicant and the City of Redlands Development Services Department for dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
199
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction 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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Water Infrastructure
The Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department (MUED) maintains the water system in the City of Redlands. The proposed Project would redevelop the Project site, which is currently served by MUED’s water infrastructure, and would install new onsite potable water infrastructure that would connect to existing 12- inch domestic water lines in Brookside Avenue and Eureka Street. Additionally, the Project would install fire water lines onsite that would connect to the existing and proposed 12-inch domestic water lines in Brookside Avenue and Eureka Street. Within Brookside Avenue, an 8-inch dry non-potable water line will be constructed adjacent to the project site for future irrigation of the site. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water.

Table UT-1: Proposed Project Estimated Water Demand
Land Use Type DU/Acreage Unit Water
Demand Factor1
Daily Water
Usage (gpd)
Annual Water
Usage (AFY)
Residential MultiFamily 131 DU 210 gpd/DU 27,510 gpd 30.8 AFY SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
200
Retail Commercial
(Restaurant) 0.24 acres 2,178 gpd/acre 522.72 gpd 0.59 AFY Total Water Demand 31.39 AFY
1City of Redlands “Water and Sewer Demands Spreadsheet” (May 8, 2019) As shown, the proposed Project would result in a water demand of 31.39 acre-feet per year (AFY). The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing water lines located within the Brookside Avenue and Eureka Street rights-of-way that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and no expansions of the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Installation of the new water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and would not provide new water supplies to any offsite areas.

The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 6.3.3, Air Quality and 6.3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment
The Project would install two new 14-inch onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing 14-inch sewer line in First Street and a new 14-inch sewer line in Eureka Street that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line in North Eureka Street. The Project also proposes to realign existing public and private sewer lines within the site.

Wastewater demand associated with the proposed Project would be typical of residential and restaurant wastewater usage in the City of Redlands. As shown in Table UT-2, Proposed Project Estimated Wastewater Generation, the proposed Project would approximately 17,645 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City of Redlands has projected average wastewater flows of

6.75 mgd at buildout of the proposed General Plan. This projection was based on current flow per customer, scaled to the projected number of customers at buildout. As the projected flow is within the 9.5-mgd secondary treatment capacity and 7.2-mgd tertiary treatment capacity, no new or expanded treatment facilities would be needed to serve the population at buildout. In addition, all new residential development that connects to the system is required to pay its applicable fair-share Development Impact Fee(s).

Table UT-2: Proposed Project Estimated Wastewater Generation Use Size Generation Rate
(gpd/unit)
Total Wastewater
(gpd)
Restaurant 10,550 SF 300 gpd/1,000 SF 3,165
Studio 40 du 80 gpd/du 3,200
One Bedroom 82 du 120 gpd/du 9,840
Two Bedroom 9 du 160 gpd/du 1,440
Total Project Wastewater Generation: 17,645 gpd
City of Los Angeles, CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006, Exhibit M.2-12 Prior to issuance of building permits, a sewer capacity study will be prepared by the Project Applicant and submitted to the City MUED. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section 6.3.3, Air Quality and 6.3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
201
Section 6.3.13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
The proposed Project would increase the overall impervious surface area on the Project site compared to existing condition. As discussed in Section 6.3.10 of this document, the proposed Project would increase the impervious surface area on the Project site compared to existing condition, however, with implementation of BMPs, the proposed Project would install drainage features that would handle and treat all potential stormwater runoff from the Project site. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities beyond the onsite improvements included as part of the proposed Project. All new residential development that connects to the system is required to pay its applicable fair-share Development Impact Fee(s). Therefore, impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. Water service would be provided to the proposed project site by the City of Redlands MUED. The 2020 San Bernardino Valley Regional UWMP, adopted in June 2021, was prepared for the City of Redlands and therefore accounts for the water usage that would be attributed to development of the Project site, consistent with its existing land use designation and zoning classification.

According to the UWMP, the City has four sources of water to provide to its service area: purchased imported water from the State Water Project; groundwater from the Bunker Hill Subbasin and the Yucaipa Subbasin; surface water from the Mill Creek and Santa Ana River watersheds; and recycled water (UWMP 2020).

The Water Supply Reliability Assessment within the UWMP concludes that the City has adequate supplies to meet projected demands under multiple dry year scenarios, taking into account the recent prolonged drought (UWMP 2020). Additionally, the Project would have a demand of 31.39 acre-feet per year, which is within the projected water demands and supplies as analyzed in the UWMP. Therefore, water demand from the proposed Project would be within the City’s current and projected water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. All new residential development that connects to the system is required to pay its applicable fair-share Development Impact Fee(s). Thus, impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Livable Community Element, most wastewater generated by sewered development within the Planning Area is treated at the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility treats approximately 6 million gallons per day (mgd) with a capacity of 9.5 mgd. As discussed above, the proposed Project would generate approximately 17,645 gpd. All new development that connects to the system is required to pay its applicable fair-share Development Impact Fee(s). As such, the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility would have adequate capacity to serve the Project. The proposed Project would connect to and operate under capacity of the current water treatment facility, allowing for sufficient service to the Project area. The quality of sewage discharged from indoor plumbing fixtures would be similar to the quality of other residential dwelling units in the vicinity that currently discharge to the City’s sewer system. The Project would not result in any of the wastewater treatment plants discussed above exceeding wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater generation are less than significant. 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? SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
202
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Redlands Facilities and Community Services Department provides a wide range of services to the city, including waste collection. Solid waste from Redlands is primarily disposed of at the California Street Landfill and the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill operated by the County, both within the city limits. These have more than adequate capacity to meet the City’s needs for the foreseeable future. Solid waste collected from the Project site would be anticipated to be hauled to the California Street Landfill, which is located at 2151 Nevada Street and encompasses 115 acres. Its design capacity is 11.4 million cubic yards, and its maximum permitted capacity is 10 million cubic yards. It has a maximum permitted throughput of 829 tons per day. In 2019, California Street Landfill received approximately 142 tons per day on average. As such, California Street Landfill has an additional capacity of approximately 687 tons per day. It has a remaining capacity of 5,168,182 cubic yards and is permitted to operate through 2042 (CalRecycle 2022). Additionally, the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill is located on San Timoteo Canyon Road and is 366 acres in size. It has a permitted capacity of 20,400,000 cubic yards and a maximum permitted daily throughput of 2,000 tons. In 2019, San Timoteo Landfill received approximately 758 tons per day on average. As such, San Timoteo Landfill has an additional capacity of approximately 1,242 tons per day. As of CalRecycle’s 2021 estimate, the remaining capacity was 12,360,396 cubic yards and is permitted to operate through 2039 (CalRecycle 2022).

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require site preparation, grading, and construction of new buildings and infrastructure. The majority of waste generated during demolition and construction activities would be building materials (e.g., concrete, dirt, and waste generated by construction workers).

Nonhazardous waste from Project construction activities would be recycled to the extent feasible. As stated in the City’s Municipal Code Section 13.66.040, Construction and Demolition Recycling Requirements, no demolition permit or building permit shall be issued for any development activity subject to this chapter unless the construction and demolition recycling plan has been approved by the municipal utilities director.

Thus, the proposed Project would be required to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements as they pertain to Project construction. Furthermore, construction waste is anticipated to be minimal compared to waste generated throughout the lifetime of the Project during operation.

Operation
As described previously in Section 6.3.14 of this document, the proposed Project includes the construction of a mixed-use development with 131 multi-family dwelling units and 10,550 SF of restaurant space that would result in an increase of approximately 191 residents on the Project site. As shown on Table UT-3, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 0.048 ton of solid waste per day (17.47 tons per year) during Project operation.

Table UT-3: Solid Waste Generation during Project Operation Land Use Quantity Generation Rate Solid Waste Demand
Multi-Family Units1 131 units 0.46 tons/unit/year 60.26 tons per year Restaurant1 10,550 0.0009125
tons/SF/year

9.63 tons per year
Total Solid Waste 69.89 tons per year
Annual Landfill Disposal with AB 341 (75% Reduction) 17.47 tons per year Weekly Landfill Disposal with AB 341 (75% Reduction) 0.34 tons per week 1CalRecyle Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates
As the California Street Landfill has the capacity to process an additional 687 tons of solid waste per day, the solid waste generated by the Project would be within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
203
related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City is subject to the requirements set forth in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.

In addition, as stated in Response 6.3.19(d) above, the proposed Project would be required comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 13.66.040, Construction and Demolition Recycling Requirements, which requires that no demolition permit or building permit shall be issued for any development activity subject to this chapter unless the construction and demolition recycling plan has been approved by the municipal utilities director. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation.

Therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
204
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

20. WILDFIRES. 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?
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?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (Cal Fire 2022). The proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As stated in Section 6.3.9 of this document, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City’s General Plan Safety Element (Section 7.4) discusses Emergency Management, which outlines goals and policies aimed at emergency preparedness to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public during and after natural, man-made, or attack-related emergencies. Additionally, the proposed Project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures or long-term blocking of road access) that would substantially impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

The proposed Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the proposed Project would not obstruct or alter any transportation routes that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. In addition, during the operational phase of the proposed Project, site access would be required to comply with standards established by the City and the Redlands Fire Department. The size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants) and fire access routes would be required to conform to City and Fire Department standards. The Project would provide adequate SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
205
emergency access to the proposed buildings via driveways from West Citrus Avenue, Eureka Street, and Brookside Avenue. Further, access to and from the Project site for emergency vehicles would be reviewed and approved by the Redlands Fire Department and the City as part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City, any potential impacts related to emergency response or evacuation (if any) would be less than significant. 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?
No Impact. The proposed Project involves the development of the site with 131 multi-family residences and 10,550 SF of restaurant space. As discussed in Section 6.3.14 of this SCEA, the Project is anticipated to result in a population increase of approximately 191 residents. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ. Additionally, areas in the Project vicinity are currently developed, and therefore, lack the combustible materials and vegetation necessary for the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire.

The Project site is relatively flat and there are limited elevation changes in the Project vicinity. The Project proposes a mixed-use development in an area characterized by existing commercial, institutional, and residential uses. As such, the Project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks as compared to existing conditions because it is representative of the existing development in the area. Thus, no impact related to other factors that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the Project. 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? No Impact. The Project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (including roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. Although utility improvements, including domestic water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain lines proposed as part of the Project would be extended throughout the Project site, these utility improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. Project design and implementation of utility improvements would be reviewed and approved by the City part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable design standards and regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities), that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in 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? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Redlands General Plan, Figure 7-3, Flood Hazards, the Project site is partially within Zone AO and is within a 100-year floodplain. Additionally, in its existing condition, the Project site is flat and does not contain any significant slopes.

As established in Section 6.3.10 of this document, during Project construction soil would be compacted and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered due to grading, and there would be an increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. However, as stated in PPP WQ-1, construction BMPs would be identified and implemented as part of the proposed Project. Implementation of construction BMPs would control and direct surface runoff to prevent flooding, and as such, Project construction would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope and downstream flooding. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
206
During operation, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing onsite drainage patterns.

Compliance with the proposed operational BMPs would ensure on-site storm drain facilities would be sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project site so that onsite flooding would not occur. Additionally, as required by Redlands Municipal Code Section 15.32.110 sets forth construction standards for new development within flood hazard areas. With implementation of the requirements set forth in Code Section

15.32.110, operation of the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

As established in Section 6.3.7 of this document, there are no landslide zones close to or within the boundaries of the Project site. The Project site is relatively flat; therefore, the risk of slope failure represents a limited level of concern on the Project site. Further, implementation of PPP GEO-1 requires compliance with the CBC, which would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. These features would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of PPP GEO-1, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream landslides, and impacts (if any) would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.

Mitigation Measures
None.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
207

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the discussion in Section 6.3.4, Biological Resources, of this document, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts related to habitat, wildlife species, and/or plant and animal communities. The proposed Project would not eliminate a plant or animal community, nor would it substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. However, MM BIO-1 has been included to comply with the provisions of the MBTA as there are ornamental trees onsite.

As described in Section 6.3.5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any buildings or structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. As described previously, the Project site has been previously disturbed from various past uses that involve grading and installation of utility infrastructure. As a result, the potential for archaeological resources exists on site are low to moderate. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been included to require archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities to ensure that inadvertent discovery of resources during ground-disturbing activities are less than significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to important examples of California prehistory to a less than significant level. 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 SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
208
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As presented in this document, potential Project-related impacts are either less than significant or would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Based on the analysis contained in this document, Project-related impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Given that the potential Project-related impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable when evaluated with the impacts of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Sections 6.3.1 through

6.3.20 of this document, mitigation would be required and incorporated as necessary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses in Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.20 of this document, implementation of the proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings because all potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, since all potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project are expected to be mitigated to a less than significant level, implementation of the proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
209
7 Document Preparers and Contributors
Lead Agency:

City of Redlands
35 Cajon Street
Redlands, CA 92373
CEQA Document Preparer:

EPD Solutions, Inc.

Konnie Dobreva, JD
Meaghan Truman
SCEA
City of Redlands City Center Project
210
8 References
Archaeological Associates. Architectural and Historical Significance Assessments of 212 and 216 Brookside Avenue, City of Redlands, San Bernardino County. June 2018. Appendix B.

California Air Resources Board. “Connect SoCal SCS Evaluation Packet.” 3 October 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/carb-2020-scs-evaluation-packet.pdf?1606337689 California State Geoportal. “California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.” 2020. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414 Citygate Associates, LLC. Fire Department Assessment and Deployment Study. 25 June 2020. https://destinyhosted.com/redladocs/2020/CC/20200901_218/2879_Vol_1_- _Final_Redlands_FD_Assessment_and_Deployment_Study_Technical_Report_%2806-25-20%29.pdf City of Los Angeles (2006). L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. Website:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).

Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Envirostor.”
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Redlands San Bernardino Countywide Plan. 2020.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905 Southern California Association of Governments. “Demographics and Growth Forecast.” 3 September 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-andgrowth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 Southern California Association of Governments. “Housing Element Parcel Tool.” 2020. https://maps.scag.ca.gov/helpr/
Southern California Association of Governments. “2019 Local Profile City of Redlands.” 2019 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/redlands_localprofile.pdf?1606014831 State Water Resources Control Board. “Geotracker.” Accessed 6 May 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607100096 The Natelson Company, Inc. “Employment Density Study Summary Report.” 31 October 2001. https://docplayer.net/30300085-Employment-density-study-summary-report-october-31-prepared-forsouthern-california-association-of-governments.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “National Wetlands Inventory.” 5 May 2022. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
Urban Crossroads. Air Quality Impact Analysis. 3 June 2022. Appendix A.

Urban Crossroads. Energy Analysis. 3 June 2022. Appendix C.

Urban Crossroads. Greenhouse Gas Analysis. 3 June 2022. Appendix E.

Urban Crossroads. Noise Impact Analysis. 6 June 2022. Appendix I.

City Center Project Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-1
August 2022

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which an Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6).

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the City Center Project (Project). The City of Redlands is the Lead Agency for the Project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the City Center Project. The table identifies the Plans, Programs, Policies (PPPs) and mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance.

The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan, Program, Policies and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.

City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-2
August 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-3
August 2022
TABLE 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY CENTER PROJECT
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials

AIR QUALITY
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. All applicable measures included in Rule 403, shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of Rule 403, which include but are not limited to (1):
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Grading Permits.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (2):
• Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

Note in Construction Plans,
Specifications, and
Permits. Prior to Grading
Permits.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
PPP AQ-3: Rule 445. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 445 (3):
• Rule 445 prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new developments.

Note in Construction Plans,
Specifications, and
Permits. Prior to Building
Permits.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-4
August 2022
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: Pre‐construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction plans and Project specifications shall state that if construction or other Project activities are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February through August for raptors and March through August for most migratory bird species), a pre‐construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that active bird nests, will not be disturbed or destroyed.

The survey shall be completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the Project area and adjacent areas where proposed Project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly due to construction activity or noise. If an active nest is identified, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate disturbance limit buffer around the nest using flagging or staking. Construction activities shall not occur within any disturbance limit buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Grading Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during project construction, the project will be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Grading Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to perform archaeological monitoring and the archaeologist shall be present during initial ground-disturbing activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition of historic structures, and grading up to ten feet below surface) to identify and assess any known or suspected archaeological and/or Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Grading Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division
City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-5
August 2022
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
cultural resource. The qualified archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Project site. The plan shall include a scope of work, project grading and development scheduling, pre-construction meeting (with consultants, contractors, and monitors), a monitoring schedule during all initial ground-disturbance related activities, safety requirements, and protocols to follow in the event of previously unknown cultural resources discoveries that could be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The plan shall be submitted to the City and the Consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment, prior to final approval by the City. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall incorporate the components described in 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 the qualified archaeologist shall assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside the buffered area may continue during the assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians shall be contacted, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall follow the stipulations of the Monitoring and Treatment Plan. 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.

City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-6
August 2022
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter

15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of Project approval.

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Building Permits.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
MM PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Redlands Planning Department, or designee, from a qualified professional paleontologist pursuant to the 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. The PRIMP shall also require paleontological monitoring pursuant to the 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology for ground disturbing activities greater than five feet in depth within native soil, as determined by the Project paleontologist.

In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered.

Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Grading Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division
City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-7
August 2022
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes.

Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PPP WQ-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer) pursuant to the Municipal Code Chapter 13.54. The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to limit the potential of polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Redlands staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to
Grading Permit.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
PPP WQ-2: Prior to grading permit issuance, the project developer shall have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the City for implementation. The project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section

13.54 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the Project.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to
Grading Permit.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
NOISE
PPP N-1: The Project plans shall state the Project is required to comply with construction hours of operation outlined in Section 8.06.120 of the City’s Municipal Code; construction activities shall take place between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to
City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division
City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-8
August 2022
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. In addition, all motorized equipment used in such activities are required to be equipped with functioning mufflers.

Grading and Building
Permits.

MM N-1: Large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 30 feet of the southwest Property line, as shown on SCEA Figure N-3. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired bulldozers (less than 80,000 pounds) shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to
Grading and Building
Permits.

City of Redlands Building
and Safety Division

PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP PS-1: Schools Development Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Developer shall pay applicable school development impact fees levied by the Redlands Unified School District pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407).

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Building Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division
PPP PS-2: Park Fees. As a Condition of Approval of a tentative map, the Developer shall pay applicable park related fees pursuant to Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 3.32.

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Building Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division
PPP PS-3: Development Impact Fees. As a standard requirement and included as a Condition of Approval for the Project, and prior to issuance of any building permits for the Project, the Developer shall pay all applicable City of Redlands Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to the Redlands Municipal Code and/or adopted fee schedules.

Note in Construction Plans
and Specifications. Prior
to Building Permits.

City of Redlands Planning
Division

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TCR-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and shall 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, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the Project archaeologist, in coordination with the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and all subsequent In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to
Grading Permit.

City of Redlands Planning
Division
City Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Redlands
Final SCEA 4-9
August 2022
Plan, Program, Policy / Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for the remainder of the Project, should the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians elect to place a monitor onsite.

Any and all archaeological and cultural documents created as part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Applicant and the City of Redlands Development Services Department for dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-1
Final SCEA
August 2022

2. Response to Comments on the Public Review Draft SCEA This memo contains responses to the comments that the City of Redlands (Lead Agency) received on the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the City Center Project during the public review period, which began July 13, 2022 and closed August 12, 2022 (SCH No. 2022070186). This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Public Review SCEA together comprise the Final SCEA.

The following public comments were submitted to the City of Redlands during the public review period:

O1. OmniTrans, Received July 15, 2022 (2 pages)
O2. Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Received August 11, 2022 (2 pages) O3. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Received August 12, 2022 (1 page) I1. Philip J. Terhorst, Received July 29, 2022 (2 pages) I2. T. Allen Jolliff, Received July 30, 2022 (1 page)
The following public comments were submitted to the City of Redlands after the public review period:

O4. Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), Received August 29, 2022 (2 pages)
The public comments and responses to comments are included in the public record and are available to the Lead Agency decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision. Pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21155.2(b)(5), none of the comments provide substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant environmental impact or an increase in a less than significant impact previously disclosed in the City Center SCEA.

This Response to Comments includes minor revisions to the Public Review Draft SCEA based upon:
(1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. These revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the SCEA.

Changes made to the SCEA are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. These revisions are also outlined in Chapter 3, Errata. Revisions to the Public Review Draft SCEA.

Although CEQA Statute Section 21155 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received, the City of Redlands has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-2
Final SCEA
August 2022
Letter O1: OmniTrans, Received July 15, 2022 (2 pages)
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-3
Final SCEA
August 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-4
Final SCEA
August 2022
RESPONSE TO LETTER O1: OmniTrans
Response to Comment O1.1: This comment states that the preliminary site plan included in the SCEA does not show the existing bus stop on Brookside Avenue. The bus stop is ADA compliant and OmniTrans recommends that the City require the bus stop to be left in place. The commenter also recommends that the Project provide a concrete bus pad on Brookside Avenue and a bus shelter, which OmniTrans will take ownership of and provide maintenance for.

The City appreciates OmniTrans review of the City Center SCEA and will continue consulting with OmniTrans regarding the bus stop on Brookside Avenue. The Project would be conditioned to coordinate placement and improvement of the bus stop with OmniTrans and the City of Redlands. The comment does not raise any environmental concerns or questions; therefore, no further response is warranted. The comment will be forward to City decision-makers.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-5
Final SCEA
August 2022
Letter O2: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Received August 11, 2022 City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-6
Final SCEA
August 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-7
Final SCEA
August 2022
RESPONSE TO LETTER O2: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Response to Comment O2.1: This comment states that the Tribe does not have any concerns with the Project, but the site is within Serrano ancestral territory and the Tribe requested the mitigation. Written notice was previously provided to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation in accordance with AB 52 in the letter mailed to the Tribe on April 8, 2022. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation requested consultation via email regarding the proposed Project. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) consulted with City on May 3, 2022, via email, as discussed in Section 6.3.18 of the SCEA (see pages 197-198). Furthermore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 are included, in line with the mitigation outlined in Letter O2, which reduce any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. The comment does not raise any further environmental concerns or questions; therefore, no further response is warranted. The comment will be forward to City decision-makers.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-8
Final SCEA
August 2022
Letter O3: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Received August 12, 2022 City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-9
Final SCEA
August 2022
RESPONSE TO LETTER O3: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Response to Comment O3.1: This comment states that the Tribe does not have any concerns with the Project, but the site is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. The Tribe included measures related to the discovery of human remains. Written notice was previously provided to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in accordance with AB 52 in the letter mailed to the Tribe on April 8, 2022. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians did not request consultation on the Project. Tribal consultation is further discussed in Section 6.3.18 of the SCEA (see pages 197-198). Furthermore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 and PPP CUL-1 are included, in line with the measures outlined in Letter O3, which reduce any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. The comment does not raise any further environmental concerns or questions; therefore, no further response is warranted. The comment will be forward to City decision-makers.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-10
Final SCEA
August 2022
Letter I1: Philip J. Terhorst, Received July 29, 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-11
Final SCEA
August 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-12
Final SCEA
August 2022
RESPONSE TO LETTER I1: Philip J. Terhorst
Response to Comment I1.1: This comment states that the commenter is a resident of the house adjacent to the Project site and has reviewed the Project documents and spoken to the City planner regarding the Project.

The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the SCEA or raise any other CEQA issues. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response to Comment I1.2: This comment states that the commenter is an architect and believes that this Project, along with the State Street Village Project and The Grand Project, are the type of developments that downtown Redlands needs. The comment states that the commenter is in full support of the Project. This comment presents the commenter’s opinion and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the SCEA or raise any other CEQA issues. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response to Comment I1.3: This comment states that the commenter has concerns over the 20-foot driveway along the rear of the property as there is no landscaping proposed along the driveway. The comment states that since this would be a public driveway, it would be a prime target for graffiti and trash dumping, which would be harmful to neighbors, the community, and the apartment residents. The comment states that the driveway should be removed and turned into a side yard or, at a minimum, be gated and only be accessible by emergency vehicles.

Per updated plans, available for review at the City of Redlands Planning Department, the 20-foot driveway on the western side of the site would serve as a fire access road and would be gated along Brookside Avenue. In addition, security lighting would be provided throughout the site to ensure that vandalism would not occur. This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the SCEA or raise any other CEQA issues. Therefore, no further response is required.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-13
Final SCEA
August 2022
Letter I2: T. Allen Jolliff, Received July 30, 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-14
Final SCEA
August 2022
RESPONSE TO LETTER I2: T. Allen Jolliff
Response to Comment I2.1: This comment states that if these units are multi-family, there should be at least two parking spaces per unit. In addition, the comment states that there is no mention of how bikes would be secured if families are supposed to rely on bikes.

Parking or a lack of parking is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. However, pursuant to City of Redlands Municipal Code Section 18.92.080, with a Conditional Use Permit, only 1 parking space is required for units up to 999 square feet (SF), 1.5 space is required for units 1,000 to 1,499 SF, and 2 spaces are required for units greater than 1,500 SF. As discussed within the SCEA and shown on Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, Parking Level, the Project would include multiple bike storage rooms and bike maintenance rooms adjacent to the parking garage. This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the SCEA or raise any other CEQA issues. Therefore, no further response is required.

City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-15
Final SCEA
August 2022
Letter O4: Lozeau Drury, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), Received August 29, 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-16
Final SCEA
August 2022
City Center Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments City of Redlands 2-17
Final SCEA
August 2022
RESPONSE TO LETTER O4: Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of SAFER Response to Comment O4.1: This comment provides background on the Project and introduces the comment letter. The comment states that the SCEA does not include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. As discussed throughout the SCEA, mitigation measures would only be required for impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. In regard to these impact areas, the Project would implement all feasible mitigation required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. For other impact areas, there would be no nexus requiring mitigation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(A)-(B), and impacts would be less than significant. Comment O4.1 does not provide evidence of significant impacts that require the preparation of an EIR or that would require changes to the Public Review SCEA. Comment O4.1 and this response will be forwarded to all decision-making bodies to inform their decision on the Project. No further response is warranted.

City Center Project Chapter 3. Errata
City of Redlands 3-1
Final SCEA
August 2022

3. Errata to the City Center SCEA
This section contains revisions to the Public Review Draft SCEA based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. These revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the SCEA. Changes made to the SCEA are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions.

Revisions in Response to Written Comments and City Changes to Text The following text, organized by SCEA Chapters and Sections, has been revised in response to comments received on the SCEA and corrections identified by the City.

Section 6.3.13, Noise
Mitigation Measure N-1, on page 183 will be revised as follows:

MM N-1: Large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 30 feet of the southwest Property line, as shown on SCEA Figure N-3. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired bulldozers (less than 80,000 pounds) shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 8396

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1138, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20475, AND ADOPT A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, Vantage One Real Estate Investments, (“Applicant”), submitted a development application for Conditional Use Permit No. 1138 to construct a mixed-use project with 131 dwelling units and a total of 10,550 square-feet of commercial (restaurant) floor area known as “The City Center” on approximately 3.01 acres located at the northwest corner of N. Eureka Street and Brookside Avenue (APNs: 0171-211-11-0000 through 0171-211-21-0000, 0171-211-25-0000, and 0171-101-01- 0000 through 0171-101-05-0000); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20475 to merge seventeen parcels and subdivide a total of approximately 3.01 acres into two parcels for development purposes; and
WHEREAS, the above-referenced applications filed with the City of Redlands are referred to hereinafter as the “Project” and “Project Entitlements”; and WHEREASE, the proposed Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study and Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study/SCEA, written comments submitted during the 30-day public review period, and the testimony and any written evidence submitted by members of the public; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony and the written evidence submitted by staff, the applicant and by members of the public on the Project; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing on August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission determined that approval of the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare and voted unanimously to approve the Project Entitlements; and WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury, LLP, representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) (“Appellant”), has filed a timely application on September 9, 2022, to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project Entitlements for the City Center mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2022, notice of the City Council public hearing was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 300 feet of the subject property, in accordance with Sections 17.07.060 and 18.192.040 of the Redlands Municipal Code; and 2 WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project Entitlements, and considered verbal and written testimony of City staff, the appellant, and public comments from members of the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The proposed Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study and Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Project, exercised its own independent judgment and analysis and there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may have any significant effects on the environment, the custodian of records is the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, and the SCEA document has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21155.2(b) and applicable provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 2. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1138, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20475, and the adopted Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the City Center mixed-use project.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 4
th day of October 2022.
_________________
Paul T. Barich, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 th day of
October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
City Council/Successor Agency Meeting K. 2.

DATE: 10/04/2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Consideration of the proposed "The Grand" residential project by applicant Vantage One Real Estate Investments, LLC, located at the northeast corner of West Redlands Boulevard and Eureka Street.
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
PUBLIC HEARING to consider the following applications for the properties located at 200-206 West Redlands Boulevard (APNs:
0169-281-30-0000 and 0169-281-31-0000) in the Town Center - Historic (TC-H) District of the Downtown Specific Plan, and associated California Environmental Quality Act determination:

1. City Council Resolution No. 8389– Consideration of an Initial Study and Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment document prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. City Council Resolution No. 8391-(Amendment No. 23 to Specific Plan No. 45) –A proposal to amend the development standards regulating building height in the Town Center (TC), Town Center – Historic (TC-H), and Service Commercial (SC) Districts of the Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 45). The proposed amendment would allow the maximum building height to be four stories, while maintaining the overall maximum height limit of 55 feet.

3. City Council Resolution No. 8390-(Commission Review and Approval No. 911 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 20175) – A request for site plan approval and architectural design review for a proposal to construct a 145-unit multi-family apartment building four stories in height, including subterranean and surface level structured parking, courtyards, and common open space amenities, and a proposal to merge fourteen existing parcels into one

1.49-acre parcel for development purposes.
(Development Services Director Desatnik)
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

1. Mayor declares the meeting open as a public hearing.

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

Mayor calls for questions/comments from members of the City Council.

3. Mayor calls upon applicant, or his/her representative, for comments and testimony.

4. Mayor calls for comments/questions/testimony from members of the public
(3 minutes per speaker).

5. Mayor calls upon City Clerk to note any written comments received.

6. Mayor calls upon the applicant, or representative, for rebuttal comments (5 minutes).

7. 8. Mayor closes the public hearing.

9. City Council considers the motion and votes.

MOTION(S):

If the City Council deems it appropriate, staff recommends the following motions:

I move to adopt Resolution No. 8389 and adopt the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment document prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act;
I move to adopt Resolution No. 8390 and approve Amendment No. 23 to Specific Plan No. 45 (Downtown Specific Plan); and
I move to adopt Resolution No. 8391, and approve Commission Review and Approval No. 911 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 20175 for the proposed project.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

On August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed projects plans, received the applicant’s presentation, reviewed written public comments, and received verbal public comments and testimony on the proposed project. A total of four (4) written public comments were reviewed, of which three were in support and one opposed. A total of four (4) speakers offered comments at the public hearing on August 30, 2022 (click here to go to the meeting video). The written and verbal comments focused on the opportunity to redevelop the project site with a residential building that would provide opportunities for middle-income households, the desire for a compact and walkable downtown and to bring households, the desire for a compact and walkable downtown and to bring people into downtown to support the business community, some concerns about air quality modeling and environmental review, and general concerns about project density and height. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project.

BACKGROUND:

Redlands Passenger Rail: For more than two decades, the City has planned cooperatively with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (formerly known as the San Bernardino Associated Governments), other local public authorities, and private interests to establish a Metrolink rail line, Arrow passenger rail line, and train stations to serve the citizens, employees, and visitors in Redlands. On June 19, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7173 determining that the creation of a General Plan “Transit Village Overlay” land use classification was exempt from Measure “U” to promote the development of high density residential and non-residential uses within walking distance of Metrolink stations to reduce vehicular usage, improve air quality, provide health benefits, and provide economic development opportunities, among other public benefits. These actions laid the foundation for the General Plan Update adopted in 2017.
2035 General Plan: On December 5, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2035 General Plan and certified the related Environmental Impact Report. The 2035 General Plan implements the Transit Village Concept and strategy, and contains more than 100 Principles and Actions that are designed to implement transit-oriented developments in the core areas of the City and around the three new train stations in Redlands. The benefits of the Transit Village Concept and strategy include: slowing and preventing sprawl type development; reduce vehicle miles traveled; enable alternative modes of transportation (such as walking, biking, and transit options); reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve local air quality; preserve existing agricultural land and open space around the periphery of the City; and reduce the need for expanding public infrastructure as well as reduce potential future costs of maintaining public infrastructure and facilities. The City has also drafted (but not yet adopted) a “Transit Villages Specific Plan” to fully implement the community’s vision as articulated in the 2035 General Plan.

Climate Action Plan: The Climate Action Plan was adopted with the 2035 General Plan, and encourages infill development in the core areas of the City to include the transit village areas in conjunction with multiple transportation options. The overarching goal is to reduce motor vehicle trips locally and regionally (i.e., Vehicle Miles Traveled or “VMT”) which results in lowering greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. To accomplish this, future development and housing in Redlands should be more compact, energy efficient, and generate fewer motor vehicle trips. This can be achieved with smaller dwelling units in the transit village areas, compared to traditional smaller dwelling units in the transit village areas, compared to traditional single-family development and sprawl, and locating housing near other services (e.g., retail, offices, daily household goods, restaurants, etc.).

Measure U: The language of Measure “U” provides exemptions for six “Special Categories of Development” including one for future development directly related to the Redlands train stations. On October 19, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8270 determining the proposed Project is “directly related” to the downtown train stations, and therefore,was exempt from Measure “U.” ANALYSIS:

A) Project Description
The Project proposes to demolish the existing commercial building and site improvements and redevelop the site with a 145-unit apartment building, comprised of studio and one-bedroom units ranging in size from 517-square feet to 829-square feet located at the northeast corner of Redlands Boulevard and Eureka Street (Attachment A - Location Map, and Attachment B - Aerial Photo).

The Project consists of a single four-story building, built over a subterranean and surface level parking structure (Attachment C - Site Plan). The proposal includes a total of 22,948 square feet of common recreational space consisting of a 12,214 square-foot roof deck and a 10,733 square-foot pool plaza within a courtyard on the first level (Attachment D - Floor Plans). The Project site is located at the northeast corner of Redlands Boulevard and Eureka Street. For a detailed description and assessment of the project, please refer to the Planning Commission staff report in Attachment E.

In order to implement the project as designed, it will be necessary to amend Specific Plan No 45 (Downtown Specific Plan). Currently, Specific Plan No. 45 permits buildings up to three stories high and a maximum height of 55 feet. The proposed project complies with the 55-foot height limit, but is requesting an amendment to allow four stories.

A complete set of project development plans are provided including:

Architectural Elevations (Attachment F); Landscape Plan, (Attachment G); and Tentative Tract Map for parcel consolidations plus civil plans (Attachment H).

B) General Plan
The 1.49-acre site is currently located in the “Commercial” land use designation of the General Plan (see Attachment I - General Plan Land Use Map). The project site is also located within the General Plan’s intended Transit Village Overlay area for the downtown, with the downtown train station at its center General Plan Policies: A primary strategy of the 2035 General Plan is to encourage more transit-oriented development in close proximity to the three train stations in the core areas of Redlands, rather than continuing the pattern of subdivisions and sprawling development around the periphery of the city. This strategy is referred to as the “Transit Village Concept” and emphasizes mixing of land uses (such as residential with retail, restaurant, office, and similar commercial uses) and higher density/intensity of uses around the train stations for the intended purposes of supporting transit use, enhancing walkability and pedestrian orientation around the station areas, and reducing use of automobiles within the pedestrian-friendly station areas and downtown area.

For a detailed analysis of the applicable General Plan policies, please refer back to the Planning Commission staff report in Attachment E. The project, if approved, will also help the City achieve its goals in the new 2021-2029 Housing Element, construct more units to fulfill the city's Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, as well as provide a greater variety of housing unit types and affordability levels.

C) Zoning and Development Standards

The Project site is currently within the boundaries of Specific Plan 45 (Downtown Specific Plan) in the Town Center-Historic (TC-H) district. Surrounding properties to the north and east are also within the TC-H district (see Attachment J – Zoning Map). Properties to the south are currently in the C-3, General Commercial zone, including the Redlands Mall property directly across Redlands Blvd. that was recently approved for a mixed-use project (the State Street Village project). Properties to the west are currently within the C-4, Highway Commercial zone.

With the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicable development standards for the Town Center-Historic (TC-H) district of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Redlands Municipal Code (see Attachment K1 – Table of Development Standards).

Applicable development standards pertain to on-site resident parking, residential guest parking, and landscaping of building setbacks and other standards.

D) Commission Review and Approval
A Commission Review & Approval permit is for project design review and site plan approval, including architectural design review, for Permitted uses.

Multifamily attached residential uses are listed as "Permitted" in all districts of the Downtown Specific Plan.

Access and Frontage Improvements: The proposed Project would be accessed through new driveways on Third Street and Eureka Street, where an alley is proposed along the north perimeter of the site. This alley provides access to the parking structure. Public sidewalks (existing and proposed) would be 8’0” wide around the perimeter of the site (i.e., along Redlands Blvd., Eureka St., and Third St.), except at the northeast corner of the site where the wider sidewalk tapers to 5’0” as it connects to the existing 5’0” sidewalk on Third Street. The frontages and curbs along Redlands Boulevard, Third Street, and Eureka Street would remain in the same approximate locations as they are currently.

Building Heights: The proposed building would have a maximum height of 55 feet above grade and includes a subterranean two-story parking structure underneath the apartment building (i.e., one fully subterranean level and one parking level at grade). The proposed structure is four stories high on all sides, with apartment units on the upper floors, and common space areas placed on the first level over the parking structure (courtyard with pool area) as well as on the rooftops over the 4th floor residential units.

Floor-Area Ratio: Within the Town Center-Historic (TC-H) District of the Downtown Specific Plan, a maximum floor-area ratio of 2.0 is allowed, not including structured parking areas. Floor-area ratio (or “FAR”) is one way to measure the intensity of a land use using the total floor area of buildings divided by lot size. The proposed project has a total gross square-footage of 126,512 square-feet (or FAR of 2.0) which complies with the TC-H District.

Architectural Design Guidelines: The proposed designs of the building comply with the City’s Architectural Design Guidelines that are applicable to new projects. A description of the proposed architecture is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, and the table of Architectural Design Guidelines (Attachment K2) explains how the proposed project will meet the guidelines.

Resident & Guest Parking: The minimum required number of parking spaces for the Project is 183 parking spaces, and a total of 183 spaces are provided (consisting of 143 Standard stalls, 34 Compact stalls, and 6 ADA-accessible stalls). Per Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) Section 18.92.080(B), the required resident parking is based on unit size, and requires one (1.0) space per unit up to 999 square-feet. A minimum of 145 spaces are required for residents, and a total of 145 spaces are provided.

Guest parking must be provided at a ratio of 1 space for every four dwelling units. A minimum of 36.5 Guest spaces are required, and 37 spaces are provided.

Private Open Space: The Project would provide approximately 22,948-square feet of common recreational and outdoor space. The common recreational space would include a 12,196-square foot roof deck and a 9,017-square foot pool plaza. The Project would also include multiple indoor amenities such as a pool, fitness room, community room, bike storage, and lounges.

Landscaping, Fences and Walls: The Downtown Specific plan requires that a minimum 8% of the total lot area must be fully landscaped. As shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan (Attachment G), the Project proposes 7,843 square feet (or 12%) of total landscape area, which exceeds the minimum landscape coverage requirement.

E) Tentative Parcel Map

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20175 (Attachment H) would consolidate the fourteen existing parcels comprising the project site into a single parcel approximately 1.48-acres in size for development of the Project. A curvilinear portion of the parcel on the southeast corner of the site at Redlands Boulevard and Third Street is proposed to be dedicated to the City’s right-of-way, providing for a rounded “corner-cutoff” and ensuring sidewalks remain under the City’s control.

F) Findings
The relevant Findings for all requested entitlements are included in Resolution Nos. 8389, 8390, and 8391 attached to this staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Initial Study & Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study (Attachment L-1) prepared for the Project is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and includes all the standard topics of analysis including:
aesthetics; air quality; cultural resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services; transportation; tribal cultural resources; and utilities and service systems. The document was prepared using the appropriate criteria and thresholds for a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) in compliance with CEQA, which is similar in appearance to a Mitigated Negative Declaration used for many types of development projects.

Public Review & Comment Period: The required 30-day public review and comment period began on July 14, 2022, and ended on August 12, 2022. The Notice of Intent was published in a local newspaper as well as posted to OPR’s State Clearinghouse website for CEQA documents (SCH No. 2022070225). The Initial Study and related documents are also posted on the City’s webpage for environmental documents
at https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/environmental-documents.

Mitigation Measures: The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment L-2) includes mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources. All mitigation measures and project design features pertain to the construction phases of the Project, and will ensure that the environmental effects of the Project will remain less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary for any operational aspects of the Project or will need future monitoring. Mitigation Measures from SCAG’s RTP/SCS Program EIR which was certified on May 7, 2020, have also been included as a part of the Project’s SCEA. After mitigation, no potentially significant impacts were identified as a result of the Project, and the mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Project as mandatory Conditions of Approval.

Public Comments: To date, one public comment letter was received from a law firm representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility. The form letter stated concerns about interior air quality within the project (i.e., speculation about formaldehyde emissions from glues used in construction). Comments were also received from Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and T. Allen Jolliff.

There is no information or evidence identifying any potentially significant impacts as a result of the project, and the city’s environmental consultant has provided a written Response to Comments document (see Attachment L-3). The proposed Initial Study for a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment is the appropriate environmental determination for this project.

SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services Director
PREPARED BY:

Emily Elliott, AICP, Contract Planner
Attachments
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B - Aerial Photo
Attachment C: Site Plan
Attachment D: Floor Plans
Attachment E: Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment F: Architectural Elevations and Materials
Attachment G: Landscape Plan
Attachment H: Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment I: General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment J: Zoning Map
Attachment K-1: Table of Development Standards
Attachment K-2: Architectural Design Guidelines
Attachment L-1 - Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Attachment L-2: Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Attachment L-3: Response to Environmental Comments
Attachment M: Resolution No. 8389 (Environmental Determination) Attachment N: Resolution No. 8390 (Specific Plan Amendment No. 23) Attachment O-1: Resolution No. 8391 (CRA No. 911 and TPM No. 20175) Attachment O-2: Exhibit B to Resolution No. 8391

E REDLANDS BLVD

E CITRUS AVE
CAJON
ST

ORANGE ST
N 6TH ST

BROOKSIDE AVE

W REDLANDS BLVD

W CITRUS AVE
S 5TH ST

RUIZ ST
1ST ST
N 5TH ST

W HIGH AVE E HIGH AVE

E STUART AVE
S
4 T
H
ST

S EUREKA ST

E STATE ST
S
6 T
H
ST
3RD ST

E VINE ST
7TH ST

W VINE ST

W STATE ST

SHOPPERS LN
N
E
U
R
E
KA
S
T

KENDALL ST

SAN GORGONIO DR

W STUART AVE

ORIENTAL AVE
Copyright nearmap 2015
Location Map
OneStop.mxd
0 180 360
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

The City of Redlands assumes no warranty or
legal responsibility for the information contained
on this map.

The data used to generate this map is dynamic
in nature, therefore the information shown may
or may not be the most current.

September 10, 2021
.

Project Site
Santa Fe Depot
W

REDLANDSBLVD
3RD ST

N EUREKA ST
AerialPhoto
OneStop.mxd
03060
FeetS
cale
ThismapwasproducedbytheCityofRedlands,
GeographicInformationSystem.

TheCityofRedlandsassumesnowarrantyor
legalresponsibilityfortheinformationcontained
onthismap.

Thedatausedtogeneratethismapisdynamic
innature,thereforetheinformationshownmay
ormaynotbethemostcurrent.

September7,2022
.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLANS 07/19/22 03

THE GRAND
28'-0" 9'-6"X

STORAGE LOBBY
11'-4" 12'-3"X
LOBBY
1 14'-11" 12'-4"X

STORAGE

BIKE STORAGE
VENT
15'-0" 8'-0"X

ELEVATOR LOBBY
15'-7" 12'-4"X

STORAGE

ELEVATOR ELEV
ELEV
19'-4" 18'-3"X

FIRE RISER/PUMP ROOM
13'-5" 12'-4"X

STORAGE
14'-10" 12'-4"X
STORAGE 14'-11" 12'-4"XSTORAGE 14'-2" 12'-4"XSTORAGE
13'-5" 12'-4"X
STORAGE 14'-2" 12'-4"XSTORAGE 15'-7" 12'-4"X

STORAGE
13'-5" 12'-4"X

STORAGE
14'-10" 12'-4"X
STORAGE 14'-2" 12'-4"XSTORAGE
19'-0" 17'-7"X

STORAGE
01 131

LANDING
5' WALKWAY
40 -4.3'
ENTRANCE (+0.0')

GARAGE ENTRY
-4.3'
UP
EXIT (-11.6')
-10.3'

RAMP UP

LANDING
UP
8'-2" 13'-0"X
LOBBY
10'-0" 5'-10"X

MACHINE ROOM
UP

RAMP DOWN

ELEVATOR

PLANTER
6' CMU WALL - 6' HIGH

FROM ORIGINAL GRADE
7'-0" 2'-8"X

STORAGE
14'-2" 12'-4"X
STORAGE 14'-2" 12'-4"X

STORAGE
13'-5" 12'-4"X
STORAGE 14'-2" 12'-4"XSTORAGE
MOVING

TRUCK STALL
11' X 22'

FREIGHT

RAMP UP
±30'-8"
±20'-7"
±32'-2"

THEATER

THEATER
8'-4"
7'-10"
11'-3"
UP
7'-8"
8'-0"
9'-10"9'-10"
7'-11"
14'-9"
12'-11"
364'-101
2"
146'-41
2"
145'-5"
364'-101
2"
18'-2" 12'-8" 29'-0" 22'-11" 23'-1" 39'-7"
2'-81
2" 6'-0" 15'-312" 4'-9"
28'-111
2" 126'-3"
32'-0" 305'-1"
31'-7" 7'-51
2" 67'-0" 7'-512" 31'-7" 22'-1" 8'-912"
1'-111
2"
26'-0"
26'-0" 26'-0"
26'-2" 1'-8"
±27'-6"
±45'-3"
12'-11"
7'-6"
10'-5"
10'-7"
19'-0"
12'-11"
8'-0"
28'-7" 4'-2"
15'-0"
33'-1"
19'-0" 19'-0"
15'-0"
20'-71
2" 30'-101
2" 35'-0" 30'-101
2" 16'-1"
26'-6" 29'-2" 29'-2" 29'-2" 29'-2" 29'-2"
26'-0"
28 8
24 26
19'-0"
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29
70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 130 129 127 126 125 124
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 72 123
37 36
34 33
32 31
30 10
122 121 119 118 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 73 74
75 76
78 79
8'-0"
ELEV
33 117 116 115

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

STRUCTURAL

COLUMN TYP

CONCRETE

RETAINING WALL

LOW RETAINING WALL
9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP
9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP
9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP
131 STALLS

THIS LEVEL
9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP

PARKING
8'X15' COMPACT

SPACE TYP
8'X15' COMPACT

SPACE TYP
28 35
38 71 39
77 4'-10" 25'-1" 4'-10" 20'-5" 4'-10" 22'-6" 22'-6" 4'-10" 20'-5" 4'-10" 25'-1" 12'-11" 33'-3" 35'-4" 29'-2" 29'-2" 2'-8"
0"
19'-0"
` 9'-0"
9'-0" 6'-2" 9'-0"

PUBLIC ART

PLANTER LINE PLANTER LINE CURB EDGE OF

SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PUBLIC SIDEWALK PUBLIC SIDEWALK

PUBLIC SIDEWALK

BALCONY
ABV.

PUBLIC SIDEWALK

BALCONY
ABV.

GATE
GATE
10'-61
2"
8'-11"
10'-61
2" 8'-11"
7'-9"
7'-3"

FIRE LANE
104
128 120
TRASH

VESTIBULE
95 WEST REDLANDS BLVD

NORTH EUREKA ST

THIRD ST

PLANTER

PLANTER LINE

RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP

PLANTER

PLANTER

PLANTER

PLANTER

STAIRS/ELEVATORS

COMMUNITY ROOM

MECHANICAL/STORAGE

CORRIDOR
N

PROJECT SUMMARY
UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED) 517 SQFT - 23'X23'
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA) 804 SQFT - 29'X29'
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 829 SQFT - 23'X38.75' UNIT COUNT:

UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED): 33 UNITS (23%)
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA): 38 UNITS (26%)
UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA): 48 UNITS (33%)
UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 13 UNITS (9%)
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA): 1 UNITS (1%)
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
TOTAL: 145 UNITS
PARKING:

COVERED STANDARD: 137 PARKING SPACES
COVERED COMPACT: 35 PARKING SPACES
MOVING: 1 PARKING SPACES
PARALLEL: 2 PARKING SPACES
LOADING: 1 PARKING SPACES
MAIL: 1 PARKING SPACE
ACCESSIBLE: 6 PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 183 PARKING SPACES
RATIO: 1.25:1 RATIO UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 768 SQFT - 23'X38.25' UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA) 655 SQFT - 29'X23'
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA) 586 SQFT - 26'X23'
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 612 SQFT - 23'X32.75'
Total
Provided
Standard
Required
(25%)
Remaining Compact
Alowed
Compact
Provided
Parking Level 1 131 33 98 25 26
Parking Level 2 52 13 39 10 8
Total Parking 183 46 137 34 34
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA: 226,512.9 SF
OCCUPANCY GROUP S-2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE 1-A FOR CONCRETE PARKING STRUCTURE NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS

THROUGHOUT
0 8 16 32
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
PARKING LEVEL 1 - SITE PLAN

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLANS 07/19/22 04

THE GRAND
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
W/D
3068
3080
G
D
OPT
M AFF +72"
5068 BP
3068
S C
3068
3080
DW
REF
5068 BP
3068
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M AFF +72"
REF
S C
3068
3080
DW
REF
5068 BP
3068

VENTILATION

OPENINGS
6' CMU WALL - 6' HIGH

FROM ORIGINAL GRADE
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X
3'-11" 3'-4"X STORAGE

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"X
FIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
PANTRY
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
SD
S C
PANTRY
W/D
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
SD
S C
PANTRY
DW
REF
STOR
7'-7" 7'-7"X
WOMENS
29'-9" 16'-1"X
LOBBY
12'-8" 8'-5"X
OFFICE 1
VENT
7'-7" 7'-7"X
MENS
12'-7" 8'-5"X
OFFICE 2
11'-2" 5'-3"X

MAIL ROOM
2 1
ELEV

ELEV ELEV

LOBBY ENTRANCE LANDING

LOBBY ENTRANCE LOGGIA

LIFT ELEVATED TERRACE COVERED TERRACE COVERED TERRACE ELEVATED TERRACE

ELEV LOBBY
6' CORRIDOR 6' CORRIDOR

ELEV LOBBY
RAMP
GATE

RAMP RAMP RAMP
6' CORRIDOR6' CORRIDOR

FREIGHT

WEST PLAZA
UNIT 2X UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2X UNIT 2X UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2X UNIT 1 UNIT 1
UNIT 2X UNIT 2XD
UNIT 2 UNIT 2
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1 UNIT 1
UNIT 2X
UNIT 4
UNIT 2XUNIT 2X
ELEV
52 STALLS

THIS LEVEL

PARKING

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP
8'X15' COMPACT

SPACE TYP
9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP
9'X19' PARKING

SPACE TYP
8'X24' PARALLEL

SPACE TYP
8'X24' PARALLEL

SPACE TYP
29'-2" 29'-2" 29'-2" 29'-2" 16'-10" 9'-41
2 19'-9 " 12 19'-5 " 12" 16'-8"
19'-0" 26'-0"
9'-0"
15'-0"
8'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0"
16'-1" 30'-101
2" 35'-0" 24'-61
2"
9'-0"
23'-0" 23'-0" 11'-51
2" 27'-2"
19'-0" 23'-01
2" 19'-0" 26'-0"
19'-0"
PANTRY
DW
REF
50 51 52

UP DN UPDN
UP UP
DN
DN
DN
-4.3'

STORAGE
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
01 02
03 05
06 07
09 10
37 36
35 34
33 32
11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21
10 9
13 10
6 04
08 31 1
PANTRY
DW
REF

BALCONY
UNIT 2

BALCONY
ABV.

POOL
30 10'-4"
17'-1"
TRASH

VESTIBULE
TRASH

VESTIBULE
UNIT 2

BALCONY
W/D
30 68
3080
GD
OPT
M +72"
AFF
BP 68 50
3068
3068
3668
SD
S C

BALCONY
14 3068
30 80
30683068
6068 BP

BALCONY
ABV.

PUBLIC SIDEWALK
RAMP
AWNING
ABV

AWNING ABV

ELEVATED PLAZA

PLANTER

PLANTER

LOADING MAIL

ENTRANCE
GARAGE ENTRY (+0.0')
EXIT (-11.6') -4.3'
-10.3'

RAMP UP RAMP DOWN RAMP UP
368'-9"
144'-9"
145'-9"
367'-7"
1'-81
2" 6'-0" 22'-5" 29'-5" 26'-0" 26'-0" 28'-1112" 8'-10" 53'-9" 8'-10" 28'-1112" 26'-0" 26'-012" 29'-5" 10'-1012" 2'-812" 7'-31
2" 1'-0" 41'-71
2"
5'-101
2 17'-11 " 12 28'-10 " 12" 12'-0" 26'-0"

THEATER
7'-31
2" 12'-8" 28'-111
2" 23'-0" 23'-0" 5'-0"
1'-0" 5'-1" 1'-6" 1'-6" 5'-1" 11'-61
2" 6'-0"
10'-21
2"

THEATER PARKING

THEATER
8'-4"
9'-10"9'-10"
12'-11"
8'-0"
10'-8"
10'-7"
7'-10"
7'-8"
15'-7"
12'-11"
6'-0"
61 2" 6'-0"
6'-31
2"
6'-0"
16'-6" 23'-0" 16'-6" 11'-0" 16'-6" 6'-6" 12'-6" 42'-101 2" 26'-0" 47'-412 27'-3 " 12 11'-5 " 12" 11'-11"
34'-71
2"
11'-21
2"
8'-71
2"
UP

PLANTER
10'-61
2"
8'-11"
10'-61
2" 8'-11"
7'-9"
7'-3"

PLANTER
11'-27 8"

FIRE LANE

PLANTER LINE PLANTER LINE CURB EDGE OF

SIDEWALK

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PUBLIC SIDEWALK PUBLIC SIDEWALK

PUBLIC SIDEWALK

PUBLIC ART
8'-0"
7'-11"
6" X 6" POCKET

PLANTER
6" X 6" POCKET

PLANTER

PLANTER
4'-0"
5'-35
16"
4'-81
8"
4'-41
8"
4'-8"
5'-111
2"
5'-51
2"
6'-111
2"
7'-8"
6'-71
2"
6'-71
2"
7'-8"
6'-111
2"

PLANTER

PLANTER

PLANTER

PLANTER

PLANTER

ART PIECE

GATE ART PIECE

PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER

TREE WELL TREE WELL TREE WELL TREE WELL TREE WELL TREE WELL

TREE WELL
6' CORRIDOR

STAIRS/ELEVATORS

COMMUNITY ROOM

MECHANICAL/STORAGE

CORRIDOR
N

PROJECT SUMMARY
UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED) 517 SQFT - 23'X23'
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA) 804 SQFT - 29'X29'
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 829 SQFT - 23'X38.75' UNIT COUNT:

UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED): 33 UNITS (23%)
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA): 38 UNITS (26%)
UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA): 48 UNITS (33%)
UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 13 UNITS (9%)
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA): 1 UNITS (1%)
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
TOTAL: 145 UNITS
PARKING:

COVERED STANDARD: 137 PARKING SPACES
COVERED COMPACT: 35 PARKING SPACES
MOVING: 1 PARKING SPACES
PARALLEL: 2 PARKING SPACES
LOADING: 1 PARKING SPACES
MAIL: 1 PARKING SPACE
ACCESSIBLE: 6 PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 183 PARKING SPACES
RATIO: 1.25:1 RATIO UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 768 SQFT - 23'X38.25' UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA) 655 SQFT - 29'X23'
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA) 586 SQFT - 26'X23'
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 612 SQFT - 23'X32.75'
Total
Provided
Standard
Required
(25%)
Remaining Compact
Alowed
Compact
Provided
Parking Level 1 131 33 98 25 26
Parking Level 2 52 13 39 10 8
Total Parking 183 46 137 34 34
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA: 226,512.9 SF
OCCUPANCY GROUP R-2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-A FOR WOOD FRAMED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OCCUPANCY GROUP S-2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE 1-A FOR CONCRETE PARKING STRUCTURE NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS

THROUGHOUT
0 8 16 32
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
UNIT LEVEL 1

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLANS 07/19/22 05

THE GRAND
3030 6880
6068 BP
30 6830 68
36 68
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X
3'-11" 3'-4"X STORAGE

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"X
FIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
3'-11" 3'-4"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"X
FIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-8" 6'-3"X
STOR
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X
3'-11" 3'-4"X STORAGE

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"X
FIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
3'-11" 3'-4"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"X
FIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-8" 6'-3"X
STOR
PANTRY
W/D
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
SD
S C
PANTRY
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
SD
S C
PANTRY
DW
REF

UNIT TERRACE UNIT TERRACE

UNIT TERRACEUNIT TERRACE
UNIT 2 UNIT 2

ELEV ELEV

EAST PLAZA

BALCONY BALCONY

FREIGHT
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
25'-0" 26'-1"X

CENTER PLAZA
DW
REF
ELEV
ELEV
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2X
UNIT 4
UNIT 2X
UNIT 1
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X UNIT 2X
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2XD UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1
UNIT 2X
UNIT 1
UNIT 4
11'-11" 11'-1" 56'-41
2" 22'-111
2" 11'-1" 11'-11"
367'-7"
4'-0" 34'-7" 23'-1" 22'-11" 29'-0" 12'-8" 11'-21
2" 7'-31
2"
6'-0" 22'-5" 29'-5" 26'-0" 26'-0" 28'-111
2" 8'-912" 14'-6" 38'-0" 14'-6" 8'-912" 28'-1112" 26'-0" 26'-0" 29'-5" 10'-1012" 11'-612" 6'-0" 144'-9"
8'-71
2" 26'-6" 22'-6" 23'-0" 23'-0" 26'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 8'-712" 362'-2"
PANTRY
DW
REF
3068
3080
6068 BP
30 6830 68
36 68

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONYBALCONY BALCONY

UNIT TERRACEUNIT TERRACE

UNIT TERRACE UNIT TERRACEUNIT TERRACE UNIT TERRACE
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
5068 BP
30 68
30 68
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
BP 68 50
30 68
30 68
W/D
30 68
3080
G
D
OPT
M AFF +72"
5068 BP
30 68
S C
UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 W/D
30 68
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
W/D
S C
30 68
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
BP 68 50
30 68
36 68
S C
UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 W/D
30 68
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
S C
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M AFF +72"
REF
S C
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72" AFF
REF
S C
W/D
30 68
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72" AFF
REF
5068 BP
30 68
S C 36 68
W/D
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
S C
3068
3080
5068 BP
30 68
30 68
68 30
3080
BP 68 50
30 68
30 68
68 30
3080
BP 68 50
30 68
30 68

BALCONY BALCONY

COMMUNITY ROOM
DW
REF
10'-61
2"
8'-11"
10'-61
2" 8'-11"
7'-9"
7'-3"
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
S C
TRASH

VESTIBULE
UNIT 1
TRASH

VESTIBULE
6'-0"

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY
138'-9"
11'-21
2" 12'-8" 4'-0" 1'-31
2" 34'-7" 28'-111
2" 23'-0" 23'-01
2"
1'-0"
W/D
68 30
3080
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFF
BP 68 50
30 68
30 68
36 68
SD
S C
30 68
3080
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
10'-21
2"

DN UP UP DN

UP DN UPDN
6' CORRIDOR

ROOF ROOF

OPEN TO BELOW
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR

ELEV LOBBY
VENTS

ELEV LOBBY

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

STAIRS/ELEVATORS

COMMUNITY ROOM

MECHANICAL/STORAGE

CORRIDOR

PROJECT SUMMARY
UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED) 517 SQFT - 23'X23'
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA) 804 SQFT - 29'X29'
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 829 SQFT - 23'X38.75' UNIT COUNT:

UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED): 33 UNITS (23%)
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA): 38 UNITS (26%)
UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA): 48 UNITS (33%)
UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 13 UNITS (9%)
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA): 1 UNITS (1%)
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
TOTAL: 145 UNITS
PARKING:

COVERED STANDARD: 137 PARKING SPACES
COVERED COMPACT: 35 PARKING SPACES
MOVING: 1 PARKING SPACES
PARALLEL: 2 PARKING SPACES
LOADING: 1 PARKING SPACES
MAIL: 1 PARKING SPACE
ACCESSIBLE: 6 PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 183 PARKING SPACES
RATIO: 1.25:1 RATIO UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 768 SQFT - 23'X38.25' UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA) 655 SQFT - 29'X23'
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA) 586 SQFT - 26'X23'
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 612 SQFT - 23'X32.75'
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA: 226,512.9 SF
OCCUPANCY GROUP R-2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-A FOR WOOD FRAMED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 0 8 16 32
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
UNIT LEVEL 2

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLANS 07/19/22 06

THE GRAND
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
3'-11" 3'-4"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"XFIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT 3'-11" 3'-4"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"XFIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-8" 6'-3"X
STOR
3068
30 80
6068 BP
3068
30 68
36 68
30 68 30 80
6068 BP
30 68
30 68
36 68
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
30 68
30 80
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
367'-7"
138'-9"138'-9"
367'-7"
2'-81
2" 6'-0" 22'-5" 10'-1012" 2'-812"
11'-21
2"
11'-1" 11'-11"
6'-0"
12'-8" 4'-0"
11'-11"
4'-0" 1'-31
2"
1'-31
2"
14'-6" 38'-0" 14'-6"
10'-61
2"
8'-11"
10'-61
2" 8'-11"
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
33'-6" 7'-7"X

FITNESS ROOM
34'-7" 28'-111
2"
11'-11
2" 8'-7" 26'-6" 22'-6" 23'-0" 23'-0" 26'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 8'-71 2"
29'-5" 26'-0" 26'-0" 28'-111
2" 8'-912" 8'-9" 29'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 29'-5"
23'-0" 23'-01
2"
11'-21
2" 12'-8" 34'-71
2" 28'-111
2" 23'-0" 23'-0"
30 68
3080
6068 BP
30 68
30 68
36 68
30 68
30 80
6068 BP
30 68
30 68
36 68
W/D
68 30
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
BP 68 50
30 68
36 68
S C
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
W/D
3068
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
S C
W/D
3068
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
W/D
S C
30 68
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
3668
S C
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
5068 BP
30 68
30 68
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
BP 68 50
30 68
30 68
W/D
30 68
3080
G
D
OPT
M AFF +72"
5068 BP
30 68
S C
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M AFF +72"
REF
S C

FREIGHT
ELEV.
11'-61
2"
1'-0" 10'-21
2"
PANTRY
DW
REF
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72" AFF
REF
S C
W/D
30 68
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72" AFF
REF
5068 BP
30 68
S C 36 68
7'-9"
7'-3"
W/D
68 30
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
BP 68 50
30 68
36 68
S C
10'-4"
W/D
68 30
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
BP 68 50
30 68
36 68
S C
TRASH

VESTIBULE
6'-0" TRASH VESTIBULE
W/D
30 68
3080
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFF
BP 68 50
30 68
30 68
36 68
SD
S C
3068
3080
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
W/D
3068
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
UP DN
S C
UPDN

DN UP UP DN
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2X
UNIT 4
UNIT 2X
UNIT 1
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 1
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2XD UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1
UNIT 2X
UNIT 1
UNIT 4
UNIT 2X UNIT 2X

ELEV LOBBY
UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 1

BALCONY
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR
ELEV LOBBY ELEV.

VENTS
ELEV.

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY
6' CORRIDOR 6' CORRIDOR

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

TRELLIS BELOW TRELLIS BELOW

STAIRS/ELEVATORS

COMMUNITY ROOM

MECHANICAL/STORAGE

CORRIDOR

PROJECT SUMMARY
UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED) 517 SQFT - 23'X23'
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA) 804 SQFT - 29'X29'
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 829 SQFT - 23'X38.75' UNIT COUNT:

UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED): 33 UNITS (23%)
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA): 38 UNITS (26%)
UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA): 48 UNITS (33%)
UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 13 UNITS (9%)
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA): 1 UNITS (1%)
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
TOTAL: 145 UNITS
PARKING:

COVERED STANDARD: 137 PARKING SPACES
COVERED COMPACT: 35 PARKING SPACES
MOVING: 1 PARKING SPACES
PARALLEL: 2 PARKING SPACES
LOADING: 1 PARKING SPACES
MAIL: 1 PARKING SPACE
ACCESSIBLE: 6 PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 183 PARKING SPACES
RATIO: 1.25:1 RATIO UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 768 SQFT - 23'X38.25' UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA) 655 SQFT - 29'X23'
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA) 586 SQFT - 26'X23'
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 612 SQFT - 23'X32.75'
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA: 226,512.9 SF
OCCUPANCY GROUP R-2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-A FOR WOOD FRAMED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 0 8 16 32
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
UNIT LEVEL 3

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLANS 07/19/22 07

THE GRAND
3068
30 80
6068 BP
3068
30 68
36 68
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR
4'-5" 3'-7"X
STOR 4'-6" 3'-7"XSTOR
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 3'-1"X

JANITOR
10'-2" 2'-0"X
METERS
4'-10" 9'-0"X

STORAGE
7'-1" 5'-1"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-0" 9'-0"X

STORAGE

STORAGE LOBBY STORAGE LOBBY

DUCT DUCT
3'-11" 3'-4"X

STORAGE
4'-7" 4'-7"X
STORAGE 4'-7" 6'-0"XFIRE

STORAGE LOBBY
DUCT
5'-8" 6'-3"X
STOR
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
30 68
30 80
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
367'-7"
138'-9"
367'-7"
28'-111
2" 8'-9" 10'-1012" 2'-812"
10'-21
2"
11'-11"
6'-0"
13'-8" 4'-0" 1'-31
2"
18'-2" 30'-8" 18'-2" 8'-9"
10'-61
2" 8'-11"
138'-9"
2'-81
2" 6'-0" 29'-412" 22'-5" 26'-1" 26'-0"
30'-101
2" 11'-11"
4'-0" 34'-7" 23'-1" 22'-11" 29'-0"
28'-111
2"
12'-8" 11'-21
2" 1'-31
2"
64'-6"
10'-61
2"
8'-11"
PANTRY
DW
REF

RESTROOM

STORAGE
28'-111
2" 23'-0" 23'-0"
29'-0" 26'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 8'-7" 11'-11 2"
29'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 29'-5"
34'-71
2"
30 68
3080
6068 BP
30 68
30 68
36 68
30 68
30 80
6068 BP
30 68
30 68
36 68
PANTRY
DW
REF
30 68
3080
5068 BP
30 68
30 68
W/D
30 68
30 80
G
D
OPT
M +72" AFF
5068 BP
30 68
S C
W/D
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72" AFF
REF
S C

FREIGHT
ELEV.
11'-61
2"
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
PANTRY
DW
REF
W/D
3068
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
S C
W/D
3068
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
36 68
W/D
S C
30 68
3080
DW
D
G
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
5068 BP
30 68
3668
S C
W/D
68 30
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
BP 68 50
30 68
36 68
W/D
S C
68 30
3080
DW
G
D
OPT
M +72"
AFFREF
BP 68 50
30 68
36 68
S C
TRASH

VESTIBULE
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2X
UNIT 3
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2XD UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2
UNIT 2 UNIT 2X
UNIT 2X
UNIT 2XD
UNIT 1
UNIT 2X
UNIT 1
UNIT 4
UNIT 2X UNIT 2X
UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 UNIT 1 10'-4"

ROOF DECK
ROOF
ROOF
ROOF
DN
6' CORRIDOR

BALCONY

ROOF DECK
ROOF ABV.
6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR6' CORRIDOR
6' CORRIDOR
ELEV LOBBY ELEV.

VENTS
ELEV.

ROOF ABV.

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

BALCONY BALCONY

DOG PARK

ROOF DECK
DN
DN
DN
30 68
30 80
30 6830 68
6068 BP

STAIRS/ELEVATORS

COMMUNITY ROOM

MECHANICAL/STORAGE

CORRIDOR

PROJECT SUMMARY
UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED) 517 SQFT - 23'X23'
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA) 804 SQFT - 29'X29'
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 829 SQFT - 23'X38.75' UNIT COUNT:

UNIT 1 (JR 1 BED): 33 UNITS (23%)
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA): 38 UNITS (26%)
UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA): 48 UNITS (33%)
UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 13 UNITS (9%)
UNIT 3 (1 BED/1BA): 1 UNITS (1%)
UNIT 4 (1 BED/1BA/DEN): 6 UNITS (4%)
TOTAL: 145 UNITS
PARKING:

COVERED STANDARD: 137 PARKING SPACES
COVERED COMPACT: 35 PARKING SPACES
MOVING: 1 PARKING SPACES
PARALLEL: 2 PARKING SPACES
LOADING: 1 PARKING SPACES
MAIL: 1 PARKING SPACE
ACCESSIBLE: 6 PARKING SPACES
TOTAL: 183 PARKING SPACES
RATIO: 1.25:1 RATIO UNIT 2XD (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 768 SQFT - 23'X38.25' UNIT 2X (1 BED/1BA) 655 SQFT - 29'X23'
UNIT 2 (1 BED/1BA) 586 SQFT - 26'X23'
UNIT 1D (1 BED/1BA/DEN) 612 SQFT - 23'X32.75'
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA: 226,512.9 SF
OCCUPANCY GROUP R-2
CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-A FOR WOOD FRAMED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 0 8 16 32
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
UNIT LEVEL 4

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PACKAGE
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLANS 07/19/22 08

THE GRAND

COVER SHEET CS
08 16 32
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”

ROOF PLAN





  






 


 !"!!


#
 $%&'(%')%)) $
*+,-+./0,/1/+2/3-+-/4,*/3-5/,-36227
89$:
;:<=
>!

?


?



@


?




@


@


A

 @
 
B?



 
8=
 ? 


?C 
?

?D


?



?


B?



@


8=@


!
)!7EFFGHHGEI1JKGJLM+NNOEKPQ,ERSTTU? V@ ?C 


 

W 

?



@


? 



?B




?
C
@?



? B X?

?




?@

>Y"Z@
 @
Z



?
A@


@?? 
C C<

@

@A ??

@?


B
?@
@?


?W
<
@?
?
<


 






 

?[

>!Y\

? 




)%%Z)%]^ 

_@
B
?
8$%>]\Z)&>Z(%Z%%%%

%>]\Z)&>Z(>Z%%%%=
C X

 ?Z;?
8Z;=#?
C #X
X





!
(!`ab247c/+14,.


?+FJIdFJIe,ERfgeE3NJhGiGh`QPI,ERjklmELIeELI 3NJhGiGh`QPInU ?




C 
B




?
? @


A@


C C
C
X

 ?8=<X

 ?U;?
8Z;=<

 ?B
 ?


8=#?
C
#X
X





8




!Y"=!C 
?



X@



XC

[ @ A@


C CA @?? <XC





C B ?


[ @ C C
 ""
 !
Y!`ab247c/+14,.


?-JIePeGKJ`POhJQ5PN,ERfoTpkU
?


 ? @?

[


?



>!Y\Z

? 

?

?
B



@?
 <




C 
?C

?
?


_@
B
?


@? W
? <
)%%^!

_@
B
?

C X

 ?Z
;?
8Z;=#?
C #X
X





8$%>]\Z)&>Z(%Z%%%%

%>]\Z)&>Z(>Z
%%%%=!
:
>!
?



# 


$  ?


)![
q

$#X
X





8Y"=<X

 ?Z;?
8Z;=
?

(!@??@

q

$
?C$Y"<X

 ?
?


$Y"<X

 ?Z;?
8Z;=
?

@C$
?

 ?


8Z(=
?

^ $;CX
 ?


8ZY=

C
@?

8
Z>=
?

Y![


 $  ?


? 

A@



@??


?





@
C 

?
"!@??@



 $
?C$r

 B C
? 

$#

s? 
@?



@@? 
C

8
#

W
C@ =
@C$




^ $
@?

?<

?X
C<



?W


]!?
'
?

C$C  
?





@


B


!
 









 












 






















 
!  " 

 
#$





%




&










 

  " 

 
#$





'(
)


 






*+





*$+








*+(
)

 ,

)




'-./0'
)
!-./..
)
1/-./..
(23(34
%

(

  







&
)


)



 







 






056"





)-



 
 
"




))7


60"8




!.'"8



%

(

 


)

"

)-
 












9)


%

  






..-'5!8









 


 
)

0.-.058

"



9 
0/-118

"

 
7 


 

 





%

(









 


 

2

$ 



9 


*




:4

 ,




-


$"

(
-


"; (
+
%

0



)

7

<=>?@ABCDEFGCHIJ<=>?K <=>?L>MC
NKOEPHCQJCC?R
S 0$

1160
0$
-0$

-
 TT0.
0$
-0$

!T6!T
T66
0$
-0$

-
01T!
0$
-0$

0!/5
0$
-0$

-
 T!.'
@I?PUE=>?KVWXY $Z[23\]
^HI_C`?L>?Ca>K?IHAV%

(











 
0'6

 )



 




 2


 
] 10




 &

5/-///8










( 




 


-

 


 







)






 

(

2

-







 

 ;




0!'.







)





0'T/

bCPKEHC<V%


)
)

,


c\d 

&


 
&c



) 




 


d) 






 










2





 
33

0'-./.0-


 
 

2
 
 ] !./


)

  

(

c




d


 




 -





-

&




,



c\d

LEK?P>=PGUCeIFFE=>?>CKP=feU>FP?C^HI?C`?>I=g`?IJhiijV%













(

 

.//!-
 







$16*$16+-)


 




1/-.//!%




 

) 




)






)


) 






 

 
)-










k)



)
*[l[+

 

 



$16
8




k0!

  


) )
7

 

  


c










)d*+



) 


 

 











) k[l[

 

 

)








2
 

$
*2$+ 
 )-$16 

 


 



 



* +


)  






 






 





























 












 

















!

! 

"




#


$


%






&



$
'!
 $
(

$

$

)



!


*$
+,+,$


-
(





!



+,+,.+,/0
(



!


1 2





3+,+,.+,/0
(
12 3 
4 






$

(#




5 







67 !


!

!




+,*0

!



+,,0






+,+,.+,/0
(
12  












8










(#
#
8





.+,.+*7
!!







*,$
+,+,$

(#

 







+,+,.+,/0
(
12 %
 



(#-
+,*0









#
*90

%




(
 $


&


$


!
!
















:
!

!

;






%






%


-
+,+,.+,/0
(
12 

4 
!


%






$

< 

3
!

!

3


!








%

=
'



%









$

$
 

$


!! 

!


!







1









+,+,.+,/0
(
12 >





0,
!






$






 
<



$




1





%


+?

0,
!







$








4(






,90>

1












+,
%


!


>


'
%


.








!


.< 





 






!


! 



!
!


!




 .
 






!




6/0
!







6,,@










%


1



-



1 







:


 ;
%



) 


 



1








%

5
 












$

%



1












#
9/*
A&B'

CD

EFGFHIJ
KJIG

LMNMOPQ
RQPN
SPNT
UVM
WMVXYNPZX[N\



6/7.





 






:


 ;











1 




]
.



1 
&
^

_! 



!





 



%




1 -





) 


 







%
%$
%



%
%









LMNMOPQ
RQPN
R[QX`XMV\

!





+,*0



1 

!


]



+,69









.






!





!
8


















(
 $







!





!% 



!





!
!



















:

) 


!;


!

/$
&






) 


!

!"

8









%

 $

$


$

 









2


















!!



!!



$


% a 

!













$









%


!

.

 






%
%

 

 



   


 


 
 


  


 
 
 





 



 
 
  


 
!


"#

$


 


$   
 



 "

%&'()*+,-





$ 




  .  

 /
 



 


0


 /



 
 
 


  

$ 





 

"

%&'()1+
 
 

 
 
 





 . "

2&'(2)+3



 
 


 
.  

 
  



 
. 
 



"

4&5(2+6

 





 




 






 

 
 


  "

4&5()+# 
 


 
 




 


 
 

  





 $


"

7"89:
 
 

 
 

 





   "

4&5(2)+
 

0


 !


; 

 
 






  

 <




 




 


  $

"

4&'&(2+3

  

 
0

 






   


 

 
 
 = >

  
"

4&'(*+
 




 

 
 
0

 







 
 
"

4&'(?%+, 



 
 .  

 <

 






 


$ 

 




   "

@ABCDEFGFEHIJKLMDKNMDKO

,

 



 
 


 



 

,
P"7
-
 Q. ,
Q 

 0 $
 

 



 




  
 0 



 "

  


  
R



  . ,
: 
= 
S=T= 
U

S=UT
,
=
S,=T



"

V  
0 $ 



   







0  $

$


S


 7T$ 

  
 

 

0 
  


$ 


 
$
 

 

S


 

 -


$ 
 

T $

 
  ,
"

. ,
 

   
 


 


 


 



 
 


 




$ 

 









 
  

 "



 
$ 



 


-  0


 








 

 
 
 = >




  
"
  
 
$ 



 










 





 






 
 








 
















 
!