Redlands City Council
March 5, 2024

The proposal includes an extension of Pennsylvania Avenue westerly of Karon Street to establish a connection to Tennessee Street. This will provide access to the townhome neighborhood that fronts result in smaller blocks with shorter block lengths more amenable to pedestrian traffic (similar to the existing historical blocks along East State Street), and should also result in slowing motor vehicle traffic through the site. The proposed buildings and other site design elements will be in substantial conformance with the design goals of the draft Transit Villages Specific Plan, and the project plans were prepared by an architectural firm very experienced with implementing form-based codes and transit-oriented development.

Entitlements will include:
• General Plan Amendment No. 143 to amend the General Plan Designation of approximately 17.9 acres from Commercial to High Density Residential (up to 27 units per acre) and amend the General Plan Designation of approximately one acre from Public and Open Space to High Density Residential (up to 27 units per acre); • Specific Plan Amendment No. 40 Amendment No. 48 to amend the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (Special Plan No. 40) to remove the 24.4 acre project site from the boundaries of Specific Plan area;
• Zone Change No. 469 to change the zoning designation of the 24.4 gross acre project site from EV/SD (Special Development) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan to 18.89 gross acres of R-3 (High Density Residential) District, and change the zoning designation of 5.51 gross acres to R-1 (Single Family Residential) District; • Commission Review and Approval No. 940 for site plan approval and architectural design review to construct a total of 18 single family homes, ranging in size from 1,520 sq. ft. to 1,690 sq. ft., fronting Karon Street;
• Commission Review and Approval No. 941 for site plan approval and architectural design review to construct a 451-unit multi-family apartment complex fronting Lugonia Avenue. The residential units include studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom floor plans that range from 561 sq. ft. to 1,125 sq. ft. each, including onsite parking and recreation areas, with access provided via two driveways on Lugonia Avenue; • Commission Review and Approval No. 942 for site plan approval and architectural design review to construct a 72-unit townhouse development fronting Pennsylvania Avenue, including onsite parking and recreation areas, with access provided via one driveway on Pennsylvania Avenue;
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 20469 to subdivide the entire project site into three parcels,

3.38 net acres, 4.75 net acres, and 14.48 net acres in size for development purposes; • Tentative Tract Map No. 20490 to subdivide 3.47 net acres into 20 lots, ranging in size from 5,995 to 10,518 sq. ft., with 18 numbered lots utilized for single family residential development, one lettered lot utilized as a private park, and one lettered lot for stormwater facilities;
• Tentative Tract Map No. 20491 to subdivide Parcel 1 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20469 map for condominium purposes, utilized for 72 residential condominium units. • Related ancillary applications at a later date (e.g., subsequent to construction) such as Commission Sign Review and/or Sign Program.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 582 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project site is bordered by West Lugonia Avenue and retail commercial development to the south, Karon Street and an existing single-family residential community to the east, vacant land to the north, and vacant land to the west followed by Tennessee Street, the 210 freeway, and the Citrus Plaza shopping center in the County of San Bernardino.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 583 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

II. COST BENEFIT FACTORS:

The cost benefit factors are evaluated independently using the cost benefit model. A positive or negative cost/benefit ratio will be derived by evaluating projects. A complete model used to evaluate the project is available in the Development Services Department. The model is based on valuation assumptions and other data provided by the applicant; and other data regarding public improvements as shown on the proposed project plans. A summary of that analysis is provided here:

According to the cost/benefit model used by the City, upon full buildout, this project will provide the City approximately $578,376.80 in annual revenue and annual costs of $372,710.40. This will result in a positive balance of $205,666.40 annually (or a combined positive cost/benefit ratio of +1.55) over the period for years 2025 through 2034.

Summary of Revenue/Cost Ratios
Category Cost / Benefit Ratio
Annual Residential Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.59
Annual Non-Residential Revenue/Cost Ratio 0.00
Total Annual Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.55
III. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND EFFECT ON THE CITY OF REDLANDS:

Identify the public infrastructure required for development of this project and identify the source(s) of funding for these improvements. Identify the effects of such development upon the City of Redlands.

List of public infrastructure required for the project:

The applicant will provide the on- and off-site infrastructure as required by the Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department. As two-thirds of project fronts existing public streets and utility lines along West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street, most of the project is able to connect to existing utilities.

Intersection improvements are required at New York Street and West Lugonia Avenue to make the intersection a fully improved four-way signalized intersection, with the project entry for the apartment community aligned with New York Street. The two existing traffic signals will be replaced.

Omnitrans has also required that a concrete bus stop and bus landing be constructed on the north side of West Lugonia Avenue, between Karon Street and the New York Street Intersection. These improvements have been made a condition of approval for the project.

In addition, an extension of Pennsylvania Avenue westerly of Karon Street to Tennessee Street is required in order to facilitate the project. This will result in Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 584 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

approximately 0.6 miles of new paved roadway, including a fully improved half-width of roadway on the south of the centerline of the street, inclusive of new curb, gutter and sidewalk, and 10 feet of travel lane with an eight-inch A/C berm north of the centerline of the street. A sewer main extension is also required from the intersection of Karon Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, to Tennessee Street to the west, and a water main is required to be extended from Karon Street along Pennsylvania Avenue to service the townhome community.

Based on the data provided by the applicant’s civil engineer, the proposed development will provide the following public improvements and facilities:
• 2 streetlights to be replaced/relocated;
• Approximately 496 linear feet of proposed sewer lines; • Approximately 824 linear feet of proposed domestic water lines; • Approximately 13,520 square-feet of landscape;
• 2920 linear feet of new public streets and road lanes; • 16,756 square-feet of public sidewalks;
• 4 public fire hydrants
The effect of the project upon the City of Redlands relative to public infrastructure:

The proposed project has been evaluated by City staff for the ability to serve the proposed development, and conditions of approval will require the developer to construct all on-site and related off-site improvements to adequately serve the project. The proposed project will not detrimentally impact public infrastructure systems, as studied and determined in the development review process by the Development Review Committee. The proposed improvements will connect to existing infrastructure surrounding the project site (public streets, domestic water, sewer, storm drain, etc.) and upgrade or expand facilities where necessary. The project will construct pedestrian sidewalks within and around the perimeter of the project site. The developer will be the source of funding for all required improvements and will be required to pay all applicable permit and inspection fees, development impact fees (such as water, sewer, and transportation impact fees), and any other applicable charges, etc. In addition, the developer will be required to furnish improvements security as a guarantee of performance.

IV. BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT TO THE CITY OF REDLANDS
The following is a list of benefits that can be attributed to the proposed project. The benefits may fall into the categories identified or a miscellaneous category. Each benefit identified will be described in detail with supporting reasons as to how the item benefits the community.

A. Citrus Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project preserve citrus? The following are accepted ways to enhance or preserve citrus which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Provide conservation easement(s) on citrus groves the City hopes to preserve.

2. Acquire citrus grove(s) and donate all or a portion of the grove to the City.

3. Enhance viability and productivity of existing groves by enhancing Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 585 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

irrigation or adding frost water.

4. Maintain a viable buffer of citrus around the project (at least 3 rows).

5. Other ways to preserve citrus.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to citrus enhancement or preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project will not affect citrus or agriculture, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project site consists of vacant land. The site has a current General Plan land use designation as “Commercial” and has been fallow since approximately 1984, based on historical aerial surveys. The 2035 General Plan encourages infill development, and more specifically within the areas adjacent to, or in close proximity to existing commercial areas, in large part to preserve agricultural land and open space around the periphery of the city (as articulated by more than 100 Policies and Actions in the 2035 General Plan).

B. Cultural Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve cultural aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or preserve cultural aspects of the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Contributes to “art in public places” concept to a minimum of 1% of total project value.

2. Contributes to the alleviation of problems at cultural sites.

3. Provides an electronic library available to the public.

4. Enhances or contributes to current services or cultural resources.

5. Contribute to performing arts venues.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to cultural enhancements or preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project does not propose contributions or enhancements to cultural aspects of the community. The project will pay City established Development Impact Fees and provide additional revenue from increased property tax assessment, business license tax, and other revenue sources that will indirectly provide funding that will contribute to enhancing and/or maintaining some of the cultural facilities within the City.

C. Heritage Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve heritage aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or preserve heritage aspects of the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Renovates existing historic homes.

2. The project has design features which include garage doors do not face street; 50% wrap around porch on 1-1/2 sides; broad overhangs on roof; driveway located on the side of house or a circular drive; decorative wood, masonry or wrought iron fence.

3. Adaptive reuse of historic structures in appropriate zones.

4. Forming a new or annexing to an existing historic district.

5. Designation of a structure as an individual historic resource.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 586 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to heritage enhancements or preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The property is not located within a Historic and Scenic District. The existing property is currently vacant of buildings. As such, there is no adaptive reuse opportunities present on the project site, nor the opportunity to establish a new historic district to preserve structures on-site.

D. Architectural Enhancements. Does the project enhance architectural aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance architectural aspects of the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Provide architectural or decorative enhancements to the project which exceed normal architectural standards.

2. Trees or other landscaping amenities that exceed minimum requirements.

3. Contribution of off-site enhancements in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk installation and street tree replacement.

4. Assisting in undergrounding of utility lines.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to architectural enhancements, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The proposal would develop the project site with 541 residential units, with a mix of high density and low-density residential uses across three neighborhoods, and comprised of multiple buildings. The multiple proposed buildings exhibit a variety of architectural styles, façades, varying roof heights, and exterior treatments and finishes.

The proposed building forms and massing exhibit a high level of architectural design that meets the City’s adopted Architectural Design Guidelines. The project will include sidewalks, landscaping and street trees, and public improvements.

E. Historic Downtown Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve the historic downtown of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or preserve the historic downtown of the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Contributes financially to viability of core downtown within expanded downtown.

2. Renovate old buildings.

3. Within an expanded downtown extends DRBA streetscape enhancements.

4. Contributing to the restoration of original building facades of existing structures.

5. Re-establishing historical “pedestrian oriented” street frontages where original buildings have been removed.

6. Provides unique adaptive use of historic building.

7. Contributes to alternative means of transportation.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to historic downtown enhancements or Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 587 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project is not located within the historic downtown district. The project will pay City established Development Impact Fees and provide significant additional revenue from increased property tax assessment, business license tax, and other revenue sources that will indirectly provide funding that could be utilized to enhance and/or maintain the downtown district.

F. Job Enhancements. Does the project enhance jobs for the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance jobs for the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Provides jobs for the community.

2. Brings in revenue from outside the city.

3. Internship opportunities for students at universities, high school and colleges.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to job enhancements, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project is a residential development and will create a small number of jobs to staff the rental offices, and maintain the site and amenities. There will also be temporary jobs associate with the construction activities necessary to develop the subdivision.

G. Open Space Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve open space aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or preserve open space within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Hardscape feature that enhances wildlife-water/food/shelter.

2. Enhanced landscape on commercial project which conceals infrastructure.

3. Waterscaping which increases illusion of open space.

4. Provides open space in addition to zoning requirement.

5. Provides a Planned Residential Development

6. Provides a usable conservation easement across open space in perpetuity.

7. Preserves access for wildlife migration corridor.

8. Provides undisturbed refuge area for wildlife.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to open space enhancements or preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project will not detrimentally impact any open space features or amenities of the City of Redlands, nor affect wildlife. The 2035 General Plan encourages infill development, in large part to preserve open space and conservation lands around the periphery of the city. The developer will also pay applicable development impact Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 588 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

fees.

H. Park Enhancements or Preservation. Does the project enhance or preserve parks of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance and/or preserve parks within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Adds improved parkland.

2. Adds parkland beyond requirements.

3. Provides pedestrian and/or bike trails to parks or provides extension of existing pedestrian and/or bike trails from the project site.

4. Adds meeting rooms accessible to local groups on a frequent basis.

5. Improves or adds to existing landscape and/or streetscape at or near the project site.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to park enhancements or preservation, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project will construct several interior private courtyard areas and a parklet (with landscape, seating areas and amenities, and open to the sky) for exclusive use by the project residents. The applicant will also pay required development impact fees associated with the project, which will benefit the City’s Park and Recreation Program.

Additionally, the project will provide additional revenue to the City from sales tax, increased property tax assessment, business license tax, and other revenue sources, which may be used to benefit City parks.

I. Public Safety Enhancements. Does the project enhance public safety aspects of the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance public safety within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Security infrastructure is provided in an architecturally acceptable manner.

2. Exterior television monitoring on commercial project.

3. Provide a building site or fully equipped fire station or contributes to dedicated City account for future construction.

4. Provides significant additional fire equipment as determined by the Fire Department.

5. Provides for a police substation (subject to City approval).

6. Provides for a building site for a new facility.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to public safety enhancements, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The proposed project can be readily served by existing public safety personnel, equipment, and facilities. The City will require the developer to pay the applicable development impact fees which have been established by the City to fund public facilities, including police and public safety services. The project will also provide additional revenue (from increased property tax assessments, sales tax revenues, business license revenue, utilities revenue, etc.), which will assist in funding police and public safety operations.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 589 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

J. School Enhancements. Does the project enhance schools or their operations within the community? The following are accepted ways to enhance schools within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Senior citizen development adds revenue but no impact.

2. Provides day care and after school program(s).

3. Project is close to schools serving the project.

4. Contributes equipment or other enhancements to existing day care and after school programs.

5. Assist schools with land or financing (such as Mello Roos).

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to schools, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project proposes to construct up to 541 dwelling units (condominiums, apartments and single-family homes). The proposed location and type of development is encouraged by the new 2035 General Plan. The project developer will pay all applicable school impact fees for residential land uses prior to building permit issuance, which will assist in funding school facilities.

K. Traffic. Does the project reduce traffic, enhance systems to improve traffic conditions or otherwise improve traffic within the community? The following are accepted ways to improve traffic within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Provide financial mitigation which helps alleviate parking problems in town i.e. by contributing to the parking district.

2. Incorporate “traffic calming” elements into the design of the circulation system.

3. Support for alternative forms of public transportation or public transportation facilities.

4. Add biking and pedestrian access to off campus intellectual or entertainment resources.

5. Have a unique method of product/inventory delivery.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to traffic, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The proposed project is a residential development (residential combined with commercial uses) that will contribute toward the construction of the necessary traffic improvements, including bike lanes. The project will also pay Development Impact Fees established by the City as a fair share contribution toward the development’s impacts on the local street system.

L. Wastewater System Enhancements. Does the project enhance the wastewater system within the community? The following are accepted ways to improve the wastewater system within the community which may be determined to be a benefit to the City of Redlands.

1. Provide a dual system to use potable and non-potable water.

2. Provide financial contributions to tertiary facilities at the Wastewater Treatment Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 590 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Plant.

3. Improve water quality.

If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to the wastewater system, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project is not anticipated to have any potentially significant impacts to wastewater or sewer utilities in the City of Redlands. The proposed project will construct connections to the potable and recycled water systems. The developer will be required to meet the design requirements of the City of Redlands and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater quality. The project would not require or result in the need to construct new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities in the City of Redlands, and it will not exceed wastewater treatment capacities. The developer will also pay any applicable development impact fees established by the City.

M. Miscellaneous Preservation or Enhancements. Does the project enhance or preserve elements within the community?
If this project provides benefit(s) that apply to enhancement or preservation of elements that are important to the City, describe in detail the benefit(s) with supporting reasons as to how the item(s) benefits the community.

Proposed Project: The project does not provide any additional enhancements or preservation of elements within the community than previously identified.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 591 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

SOCIAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

This project may create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services for those social factors checked below within the "Potentially Significant" or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Agricultural/Citrus Removal
Wildlife/Habitat
Traffic
Fire Services
Paramedic Services
Police Services
Downtown Impacts
Residential Design
Cultural Facilities
Park Facilities
Recreational Programs
Land Use Compatibility
Schools
V. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

X I find that the proposed project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed.

I find that although the proposed project could create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project by the applicant.

I find that the proposed project may create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and additional information or evaluation is needed in the following areas:

I find that the proposed project has already been evaluated for socioeconomic impacts and the prior evaluation adequately evaluated this project.

Signed:

Ryan Murphy
Senior Planner
January 23, 2024
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 592 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

VI. EVALUATION OF SOCIAL FACTORS
Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact," and "No Impact" answers are provided on the attached pages.

Issues and Supporting Information Sources:

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

1. AGRICULTURAL/CITRUS REMOVAL.

Would the proposal:
a) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? 
b) Remove active citrus groves from production? 
Agricultural/Citrus Removal – Discussion
a, b) The project site previously supported agricultural uses (citrus groves), however the site does not currently support agricultural operations. The property is currently designated as Commercial in the City’s General Plan, proposed to change to High Density Residential.

These designations anticipated the conversion of the property from agriculture to nonagricultural uses, as the area was developed. Therefore, no impacts to farmland would result, and no mitigation measures are warranted.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 593 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources:

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

2. WILDLIFE/HABITAT/OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION.

Would the proposal:
a) Eliminate or have negative impact upon wildlife
corridors?
b) Tend to urbanize open space
impacting preservation and
conservation of natural resources?



c) Interfere with use of recognized trails
used by joggers, hikers, equestrians
or bicyclists?
d) Eliminate, reduce, or have any negative
impact upon wildlife habitat areas to include
the protection of fringe or buffer areas?



Wildlife/Habitat/Open Space Preservation – Discussion
a) The project site does not support special-status plant and/or animal studies, as analyzed in a Biological Resources Analysis prepared for the project. The project site is bordered by residential development, commercial development, and vacant land. Additionally, the project site is in close proximity to SR-210 within an urbanized setting. Given the setting and its location to major transportation corridors, the project site is not located in a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore the project would not eliminate or have a negative impact on wildlife corridors. There will be no impacts.
b) The project site is in an area designated by the General Plan for Commercial land uses, and contains no natural resources. The project would not urbanize designated open space areas that could impact preservation and conservation of natural resources. The project would help implement the policies of the City’s 2035 General Plan, and as such, would help to preserve open space and conservation lands around the periphery of the City of Redlands.

There will be no impacts.

c) The project will not interfere with the use of any existing or recognized trails. The proposed project will include several new paved pedestrian and bicycle paths. There are no impacts. d) See discussion of item a) above.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 594 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources:

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

3. TRAFFIC.

Would the proposal:
a.) Result in increased vehicle trips or
congestion?
b.) Create additional traffic so as to be in
conflict with the policies of the General Plan?
c.) Does traffic impact livability of a residential
neighborhood on streets which, due to design
or terrain features, street side development or
other factors, have greater than usual
sensitivity to increased traffic?





d.) Create additional traffic so as to increase the level of service on roadways that are adjacent to or in the
vicinity of the project? 
Traffic – Discussion
a-d) In accordance with Measure U, a traffic study was prepared for the project (Attachment X), to evaluate the potential for transportation impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project. The study, prepared by Michael Baker International, analyzed existing conditions without the project, existing conditions with the project, and recommended improvements. The traffic study specifies specific roadway and site access improvements to be included in the project, which are incorporated in the project plans:
• Half-width construction along W Lugonia Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Karon Street project frontages.
• Construction one-way-stop control at the new intersection of Tennessee Street and the planned Pennsylvania Avenue. East leg of intersection to be full-width improvement. • Construction of a one-way-stop-controlled driveway to create a new T-intersection along W Lugonia Avenue, west of New York Street.
• Construction of a signal-controlled driveway at the intersection of W Lugonia Avenue and New York Street/Project Driveway, with signal modifications to accommodate new north intersection leg.
• Construction a full-width fourth leg of the stop control intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street. Specifically, construction of the west leg of the intersection to connect the newly constructed Pennsylvania Avenue to the existing three-legged intersection. • Signal timing optimization of existing intersections.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 595 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

(continued from previous page) As shown in the study, the addition of the proposed project with the above improvements does not degrade the Levels of Service below the current Levels of Service grade. Therefore, the proposed project is forecast to result in no substantial transportation effects at the study intersections and no other improvements are required. Impacts will be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 596 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

4. FIRE & PARAMEDIC SERVICES.

Will the proposal result in:
a) Requiring fire and paramedic services that are
beyond the current capabilities of the Fire
Department?

b) An increase in response time for essential fire or
paramedic services to the remainder of the
community? 
c) The need for additional fire or paramedic facilities or equipment?

Fire & Paramedic Services – Discussion
a) All buildings will be required to be constructed according to current California Building Code and California Fire Code standards. Existing fire and paramedic service capabilities provided by the City of Redlands are adequate to serve the project. The developer will pay applicable development impact fees prior to building permit issuance, which compensates the City for the development’s incremental and proportional effect on these public services.

Less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no special mitigation measures are required.
b) The City of Redlands Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services to the project site and vicinity. At this time, citywide level of service is expected to be 0.76 firefighters per 1,000 residents. Fire Department services are typically financed through the General Fund. The City would be able to provide adequate Fire Department services in a timely manner. The developer will pay applicable development impact fees prior to building permit issuance, which compensates the City for the development’s incremental and proportional effect on fire services. Therefore, the project is not expected to have any potentially significant impacts in terms of response times. Less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no special mitigation measures are required.

c) Present capabilities of the Fire Department will not be impacted with development of the project. There will be no need for additional fire or paramedic facilities or equipment. Future revenue from the project (e.g., increased property tax assessment, sales tax revenue) will assist in funding fire facilities, equipment, and operations for the city. In addition, the developer will pay applicable development impact fees prior to building permit issuance.

Less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 597 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

5. POLICE SERVICES.

Would the proposal result in:
a) Requiring police services that are beyond the
current capabilities of the Police Department? 
b) An increase in response time for essential police
services to the remainder of the community? 
c) The need for additional police facilities or
equipment?
d) Increase in crime as a result of the
type of business?




Police Services – Discussion
a-d) The City of Redlands Police Department will provide services to the project site. The Police Department contains an Operations Division and an Investigations and Support Services Division. In addition to sworn patrol officers, the Department has several sub-units, including Investigations, the Multiple Enforcement Team, Narcotics, and volunteers. Police services are generally financed through the General Fund. The project will pay Development Impact Fees, which have been established by the City to fund public facilities, including police. The project and its future residents will also provide additional revenue to the City resulting from increased property tax assessment revenue, which will assist in funding police operations.

Additionally, the project will be required to provide and implement a site security plan during grading and construction to ensure that impacts from construction site theft are kept at a less than significant level.. Less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no special mitigation measures are required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 598 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources:

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

6. DOWNTOWN IMPACTS.

Would the proposal result in:
a) A reduction of the number or types of businesses
located in the downtown? 
b) An unfair or unreasonable competitive disadvantage
to existing businesses downtown?

c) Creation of vacant buildings and the potential for
blight?
d) Cause an unreasonable increase in
traffic downtown?
e) Economic and social effects of
businesses competing with downtown
businesses?



Downtown Impacts – Discussion
a-e) The proposed project includes a residential development within the northern portion of the City and does not have the potential to negative impact the Downtown Business District.

The future residents of this subdivision may patronize the downtown area and provide an additional source of revenue to the Downtown Business District. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 599 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources:

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

7. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN.

Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with existing codes and or standards?

b) Meet minimum point standards of the Residential
Development Allocation process? 
Residential Design – Discussion
a) Upon City Council approval of the Density Bonus Agreement accompanying the project, the proposed project will comply with the applicable provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code, including Title 18 (Zoning Regulations) and Title 15 (Buildings and Construction). The proposed project includes residential dwelling units (apartments and condominiums). The buildings are designed with high-quality architecture and building materials. Conditions of approval are included in the project for the plan check process (subsequent to entitlement).

No impacts are anticipated in terms of conflicts with existing codes and standards. b) Due to current State law (SB 330 known as the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019”), residential projects and residential subdivisions are not evaluated by a point system or the standards of the Residential Development Allocation process. SB 330 prohibits annual limits on the number of permits issued for the approval and construction of housing during any one year.

City Council Resolution No. 8082 suspended certain provisions of RMC Chapter 19.04 relating to the competitive evaluation of residential development projects as long as the State law remain in effect.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 600 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

8. CULTURAL FACILITIES.

Would the proposal result in:
a) Impacts to an historic residential structure,
neighborhood, or district?

b) Impacts to an historic commercial structure or
district?

c) Impacts to cultural facilities such as the Smiley
Library, Redlands Bowl, Lincoln Shrine, Joslyn
Center, Community Center, etc.?

d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?

e) Potential to disturb existing religious facilities.
f) Impact or restrict religious or sacred uses.


Cultural Facilities – Discussion
a, b) The proposed project will not have an impact on historic residential structures, neighborhoods or districts, nor will it have an impact on historic commercial structures or districts. The property is vacant and does not include residential or commercial structures or districts as part of the project site. There would be no impacts. c) The project would not impact cultural facilities such as the Smiley Library, Redlands Bowl, Lincoln Shrine, Joslyn Center, Community Center, etc. The development will provide revenue to the City through increased property tax assessment generated by the future homes which may assist in the operation of some cultural facilities. Thus, the project will not have an adverse impact to cultural facilities.
d) No part of this project has the potential to affect unique ethnic cultural values. e, f) No religious facilities or sacred uses are located within or adjacent to the project site. The project will not result in impacts to existing religious facilities or restrict religious uses.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 601 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
,
No
Impact

9. PARK FACILITIES & RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS.

Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in use or demand for park facilities or
programs to include manpower, facilities or
equipment?

b) A ratio of parkland to population which exceeds
standards and or goals established by the General
Plan?

Park Facilities & Recreational Programs – Discussion
a, b) The project will not adversely affect existing or planned recreational facilities nor create a significant new demand for additional recreational facilities. The project is projected to accommodate an estimated 328 additional residents to the City of Redlands. The City’s Facilities and Community Services Department maintains eighteen (18) established parks, which comprise over 253 acres of land. When compared with the General Plan requirement for one acre of City of Redlands parkland per one thousand residents, the City’s park area will continue to greatly exceed this requirement, even with the addition of new residents. In addition, the design of the project incorporates new recreational amenities and open space for the residential development that will be maintained by a Home Owners Association and is adjacent to a public sports park. The project will also generate additional revenue to the City with increased property tax assessment, which will assist in funding park facilities and services.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 602 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

10. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. Would the proposal result in:
a) Land uses that are not compatible or consistent with the General Plan?

b) Economic impacts on businesses and
small property owners from a project.
c) Physical separation or division of an
existing community
d) Loss of jobs for the community?
e) Overcrowding of housing?

__





Land Use Compatibility – Discussion
a) No detrimental impacts are anticipated in terms of the General Plan. The current land use designation is ‘Commercial’ for the majority of the subject and is proposed to be change to High Density Residential. As analyzed in the staff report, this general plan amendment directly implements the goals and policies of the General Plan, specifically as it relates to the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and many other policies that support development of highintensity residential units near regional shopping centers, providing a variety of housing types, and implementing buffers between higher intensity uses, among others. There is no impact.
b) The project is not expected to result in any detrimental impacts to businesses or small property owners. The project will develop a large vacant area of land that is directly adjacent to commercial areas, with residential uses. These future residents will likely patronize local businesses. No significant detrimental economic impacts on businesses or small property owners are anticipated. Any detrimental impacts are expected to be less than significant, and on the whole, the beneficial effects of new development and public improvements are expected to greatly outweigh any negative effects.
c) No detrimental impacts are anticipated. The project site is located on West Lugonia Avenue and the project proposes streets and walkways that will further enhance connectivity within the immediate neighborhood. This project will in no way physically divide or separate the existing community. The project would extend the existing Pennsylvania Avenue further to the west from Karon Street to Tennessee Street. The project would result in a physical connection of an established roadways in the area.
d) The project will ultimately create full-time and part-time jobs for both construction and operation of the residential communities. This could include leasing office employees, Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 603 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

service and maintenance workers, and expand existing businesses that may maintain the landscaping, park areas and recreational amenities. The project is not expected to result in loss of jobs to the community. No detrimental impacts are anticipated. e) No impacts are anticipated in terms of housing or overcrowding. No part of this project has the potential to result in overcrowding of the current housing stock in the city. The project will construct up to 523 new residential units which will consist of apartments (for rent), condominiums (for ownership), and single family properties (for ownership). The new dwelling units will help the City meet its Housing Element goals for providing new and affordable high-quality dwelling units in convenient locations throughout the city that can serve different types of households at all income levels.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 604 of 967
Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Lugonia Village Project

Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

11. SCHOOLS. Would the proposal result in:
a) Creating an overcapacity in schools? 
b) The need for additional school facilities
or equipment?
c) Land uses not consistent with or
compatible with existing educational
facilities in community?
d) Social or academic impacts on
students resulting from school
closures.





Schools – Discussion
a-d) The project will eventually create additional students within the 451 residential units that could be built on the site. Any potential direct impacts attributable to the Redlands Unified School District resulting from this project will be offset through the payment of state established school fees assessed at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant with payment of applicable school impact fees.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 605 of 967
TABLE 1
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 LAND USE 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 TOTAL

RESIDENTIAL UNITS
RURAL LIVING (0.2 - 0.4 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 2.7 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 6.0 du/acre) 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 DEVELOPER LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 8.0 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 15.0 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HIGH DENSITY (0 - 27.0 du/acre) 523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 523 DEVELOPER TOTAL, RESIDENTIAL UNITS 541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 541
CUMULATIVE, RESIDENTIAL UNITS 541 541 541 541 541 541 541 541 541 541 NA PROJECT RESIDENTS /1
RURAL LIVING (0.4 - 0.2 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 2.7 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 6.0 du/acre) 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 8.0 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 15.0 du/acre) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HIGH DENSITY (0 - 27 du/acre) 1,465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,465 TOTAL, PROJECT RESIDENTS 1,515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,515
CUMULATIVE, PROJECT RESIDENTS 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 1,515 NA CUMULATIVE PROJECT ACREAGE /2
RURAL LIVING (0.4 - 0.2 du/acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 2.7 du/acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 6.0 du/acre) 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 NA LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 8.0 du/acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 - 15.0 du/acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA HIGH DENSITY (0 - 27 du/acre) 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 18.83 NA CUMULATIVE, PROJECT ACREAGE 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 21.94 NA LAND NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES, ANNUAL /3
RETAIL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INDUSTRIAL 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
ANNUAL TOTAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LAND NON-RESIDENTIAL ACRES, CUMULATIVE
RETAIL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
INDUSTRIAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA CUMULATIVE TOTAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA LAND NON-RESIDENTIAL EDU'S, CUMULATIVE /4
RETAIL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
INDUSTRIAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA CUMULATIVE TOTAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL EDU'S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA BUILDING NON-RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT., ANNUAL
RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL TOTAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BUILDING NON-RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT., CUMULATIVE
RETAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
CUMULATIVE TOTAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT.

NOTES:

1. Average number of residents per Dwelling Unit ("DU") provided by the California Department of Finance. 3. Assumes average non-residential site coverage of the following (based on the General Plan):

Residents per DU = 2.801 OTHER Retail 0.0%
Industrial 0.0%

2. Assumes residential acreage per unit of the following: Other Non-Residential 0.0% Rural Living (less than 0.2 - 0.4 du/acre) NA
Very-Low-Density Residential (0 - 2.7 du/acre) NA
Low-Density Residential (0 - 6.0 du/acre) 0.17 DEVELOPER 4. Assumes non-residential equivalent dwelling units of the following:

Low-Medium-Density Residential (0 - 8.0 du/acre) NA EDUs per acre = 6.0 OTHER Medium-Density Residential (0 - 15.0 du/acre) NA
High Density (0 - 27.0 du/acre) 0.04 DEVELOPER GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUTPROJ. Sq. Ft.* F.A.R.* Projected Acreage RETAIL 8,646,200 0.30 661.63
INDUSTRIAL 10,048,400 0.40 576.70 OTHER
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL 21,641,990 0.45 1,104.07
40,336,590 2,342.40
*As disclosed in the General Plan
Typical Home Size: 2,835 OTHER
Estimated Equivalency: 6.07
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 606 of 967
TABLE 2
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS SECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS RESIDENTIAL NET APPORTIONMENT FACTORS AS A FRACTION OF 1.0% TAX RATE RURAL LIVING ASSESSED VALUE $0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0 PROPERTY TAXES PASSED THROUGH TO CITY /1 20.00% CITY LOW-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $581,944 DEVELOPER
LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0 1. Based on amount disclosed in the adopted 1998-99 budget.

MEDIUM-DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $0
HIGH DENSITY ASSESSED VALUE $400,669 DEVELOPER

NON-RESIDENTIAL UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
RETAIL ASSESSED VALUE $0.00
INDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUE $0.00 RESIDENTIAL:

OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL ASSESSED VALUE $0.00 UNSECURED TAXES AS A % OF SECURED 2.75% CITY NON-RESIDENTIAL:

UNSECURED TAXES AS A % OF SECURED 10.00%
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 SECURED ASSESSED VALUE CALCULATION:

ANNUAL ASSESSED VALUES (YEARLY INCREASE)

RESIDENTIAL
RURAL LIVING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $10,475 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $209,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL $220,025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NON-RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INDUSTRIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL YEARLY VALUATION INCREASE: $220,025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUES

RESIDENTIAL
RURAL LIVING $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 $10,475 LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 $209,550 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025

NON-RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INDUSTRIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUE $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 $220,025 SECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATION:

CITY OF REDLANDS
RESIDENTIAL $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL SECURED TAX REVENUES TO CITY $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 UNSECURED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CALCULATION:

CITY OF REDLANDS
RESIDENTIAL $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL UNSECURED TAX REVENUES TO CITY $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES TO CITY $452 $452 $452 $452 $452 $452 $452 $452 $452 $452 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 607 of 967
TABLE 3
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

RESIDENTIAL INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS BUSINESS DIRECT SALES & USE TAX GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ASSUMPTIONS AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ASSUMPTIONS: SALES TAXES PASSED THROUGH TO CITY, APPLIED TO COSTS: /1 1.00% CITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TURNOVER RATE 10.00% CITY MEASURE 'I' TAXES PASSED THROUGH TO TRANSIT AUTHORITY 0.00% BUS & COM PROPERTY TURNOVER RATE 5.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PRICE $387,338 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES 0.00% TRANSFER TAX AS A % OF RESALE DOLLAR 0.11% AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE (20% DOWN) $309,871 DISPLACED EXISTING CITY SALES TAX 33.33% PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX PASSED THROUGH TO CITY 50.00% ANNUAL MORTGAGE PAYMENTS @ 6.50% & 30 YEARS $23,503 CITY PROJECT RETAIL TAXABLE SALES PER SQ. FT:

AVG. HOUSEHOLD INCOME (3:1 INCOME/PAYMENT RATIO): $70,509 RETAIL $0.00 RETAIL TAXABLE EXPENDITURE (% OF INCOME): 25.0% INDUSTRIAL $0.00 PROJECT RESIDENTS' PURCHASES OUTSIDE PROJECT 50.0% OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $0.00 AND WITHIN INCORPORATED CITY:

1. Based on amount passed through to city in the adopted 1997-98 budget.

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 SALES & USE TAX REVENUE CALCULATION (CUMULATIVE):

INDIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION
RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE EXPENDITURES $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 $9,536 TOTAL TAXABLE PURCHASES WITHIN CITY $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 $4,768 RESIDENTIAL SALES TAX GENERATION $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48

DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION
RETAIL TAXABLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INDUSTRIAL TAXABLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL TAXABLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL DIRECT TAXABLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LESS: DISPLACED EXISTING CITY SALES TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL DIRECT TAXABLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL DIRECT SALES TAX GENERATION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL PROJECT SALES & USE TAX REVENUES, APPLIED TO COSTS $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 RESIDENTIAL MEASURE 'I' SALES TAXES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NON-RESIDENTIAL MEASURE 'I' SALES TAXES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RESIDENTIAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NON-RESIDENTIAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL PROJECT SALES & USE TAX REVENUES, FOR TRANSPORTATION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX CALCULATION (CUMULATIVE):

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 $12.10 NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRANSFER T AXES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL ANNUAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 608 of 967
TABLE 4
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL
LAND USE SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

BUSINESS LICENSE FEE REVENUE FRANCHISE FEES (PER CAPITA) TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

RESIDENTIAL NA RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE HOTEL ROOMS NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL FRANCHISE $16.71 $16.71 OCCUPANCY RATE

BUSINESS LICENSE FEES ARE CHARGED AT A RATE EQUAL AVERAGE BILLING RATE PER ROOM TO $12 FOR THE FIRST $5,000 IN GROSS SALES, PLUS $3 % PASSED THROUGH TO CITY FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $5,000 INCREMENT IN GROSS SALES. AVERAGE YEARLY OCCUPANCY REVENUES TO CITY YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

BUSINESS LICENSE FEE REVENUE

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL LIVING NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

VERY-LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

LOW-MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NON-RESIDENTIAL
RETAIL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INDUSTRIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, BUSINESS LICENSE FEE REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE
RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE FEES $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 $25.324 NON-RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE FEES $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 TOTAL, FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE
TOTAL, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 609 of 967
TABLE 5
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL

OTHER REVENUE AND REVENUE SUMMARY

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
OTHER GENERAL REVENUES (PER CAPITA METHOD) /1 INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS OTHER TAXES /2 $10.86 EFFECTIVE INTEREST 2.50% OTHER
OTHER REVENUES $6.96

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NA

LIBRARY NA

POLICE DEPARTMENT NA

POLICE - ANIMAL CONTROL NA

POLICE - RECREATION NA

POLICE - SENIOR SERVICES NA

FIRE NA

PUBLIC WORKS NA
SUBTOTAL, OTHER REVENUES PER CAPITA: $17.83

1. See Appendix for calculation of per capita multipliers. For items without values, a net cost technique is being employed.

2. Other Taxes includes Public Safety Sales Tax.

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

PER CAPITA REVENUES

OTHER TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, OTHER TAXES $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16

OTHER REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, OTHER LICENSES, PERMITS & FINES $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, STATE REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

LIBRARY
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, FEDERAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, CITY ATTORNEY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

POLICE - ANIMAL CONTROL
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, ENGINEERING SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

POLICE - RECREATION
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, FIRE DEPARTMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

POLICE - SENIOR SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, JOSLYN CENTER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FIRE
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, LIBRARY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PUBLIC WORKS
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL, PARKS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PER CAPITA REVENUES $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL PER CAPITA REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL PER CAPITA REVENUES $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDY REVENUES $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDY REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL CASE STUDY REVENUES $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 $537 RESIDENTIAL REV AVAILABLE FOR INV. INCOME $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 NON-RESIDENTIAL REV AVAILABLE FOR INV. INCOME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT INCOME $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 $564 RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT INCOME $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 NON-RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT INCOME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL INVESTMENT INCOME $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 610 of 967
TABLE 6
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL

POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS & PER CAPITA COSTS

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

POLICE DEPARTMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL CALLS 16,562 CITY
COST PER DWELLING UNIT $295
NON-RESIDENTIAL RETAIL CALLS 8,987
COST PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT $0.47
NON-RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL CALLS 344
COST PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT $0.02
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL CALLS 7,948
COST PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT $0.42
MISCELLANEOUS CALLS /2 17,628
TOTAL CALLS 51,469

1. Based on Net Cost and number of calls to residential or non-residential properties.

2. Based on conversations with the Police Chief, these incidences are not related to residences or businesses in the City.

EXISTING DWELLING UNITS 25,984 CITY
EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 8,824,690
RESIDENTIAL FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS [1]
RESIDENTIAL CALLS 3,579 CITY
COST PER DWELLING UNIT $168
NON-RESIDENTIAL RETAIL CALLS 446
COST PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT $0.06
NON-RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL CALLS 155
COST PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT $0.02
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL CALLS 1,459
COST PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT $0.20
MISCELLANEOUS CALLS /2 1,988
TOTAL CALLS 7,627

1. Based on Net Cost and number of calls to residential or non-residential properties.

2. Based on information from Fire Chief, these incidences are not related to residences or businesses in the City.

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS /1 PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE COSTS ROADS (LANE MILES) 0.6 DEVELOPER PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PER LANE MILE /1 $5,000 CITY TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING SIGNALS 1.0 STREET SWEEPING PER CURB MILE - ALL STREETS /1 $9 AGGREGATE LANDSCAPING (ACRES) 0.0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PER INTERSECTION /1 $5,560 PARK ACREAGE (GROSS) 0.0 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PER ACRE /1 $12,500 STREET LIGHTS 2.0 DEVELOPER PARK MAINTENANCE PER ACRE /1 $7,000 OPEN SPACE (ACRES) 0.0 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE COST PER LIGHT /1 $125 TRAILS (LINEAL MILE) 0.0 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE PER ACRE /2 $125 STORM DRAINS (MILES) 0.0 TRAIL MAINTENANCE PER LINEAL MILE /2 $500 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE PER MILE /2 $750

1. Infrastructure should exclude privately maintained facilities.

1. Based on consultations with the City of Redlands Public Works Department.

2. Based on consultant's experience.

CITY GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS* CITY GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL $174,090 TOTAL CITY OPERATING BUDGET* ########## CITY CLERK $285,939
CITY MANAGER $314,819 *Excludes Debt Service, Utilities and Capital Improvements.

FINANCE $605,155
CITY TREASURER $2,875,064 OVERHEAD AS A % OF OPERATING BUDGET 11.04% CITY ATTORNEY $1,159,167
TOTAL, CITY GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS $5,414,234 OVERHEAD AS A % OF DIRECT COSTS 12.41% *Costs have been reduced to reflect department specific revenues. OVERHEAD BY DEFINITION CAUSING NO COST 0.00% OVERHEAD AS % OF DIRECT, AVERAGE 6.20%
OTHER NET COSTS (PER CAPITA METHOD) /1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $29.49
LIBRARY $28.43

1. See Appendix for calculation of per capita multipliers.

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

CITY DIRECT COSTS

POLICE DEPARTMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 NON-RESIDENTIAL RETAIL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 NON-RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 TOTAL, POLICE DEPARTMENT COSTS $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596

FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 NON-RESIDENTIAL RETAIL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 NON-RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 TOTAL, FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990 $90.990

PUBLIC WORKS COSTS
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 $2.750 STREET SWEEPING $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATION $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 $5.560 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 PARK MAINTENANCE $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 $0.250 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 TRAIL MAINTENANCE $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 $0.019 TOTAL, PUBLIC WORKS COSTS $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583 $8.583

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 NON-RESIDENTIAL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 TOTAL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685 $44.685

LIBRARY
RESIDENTIAL $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 NON-RESIDENTIAL $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 TOTAL, LIBRARY $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075 $43.075

CITY DIRECT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 $255.939 NON-RESIDENTIAL $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 $159.596 TOTAL, CITY DIRECT COSTS $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535 $415.535

CITY GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 $15.880 NON-RESIDENTIAL $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 $9.902 TOTAL, CITY GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 $25.782 SHADED CELLS ARE VARIABLE ASSUMPTIONS OR INPUTS UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 611 of 967
TABLE 7
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS DETAILED SUMMARY
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 % FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 OF TOTAL

ONGOING REVENUES

SECURED PROPERTY TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 76.08% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

UNSECURED PROPERTY TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 2.09% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

TRANSFER PROPERTY TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 2.09% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

SALES TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 $48 8.24% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

MEASURE 'I' SALES TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 4.38% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

OTHER TAXES
RESIDENTIAL $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 2.85% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

OTHER REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 1.82% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

LIBRARY
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

POLICE DEPARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

POLICE - ANIMAL CONTROL
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

POLICE - RECREATION
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

POLICE - SENIOR SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
FIRE
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

PUBLIC WORKS
RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

INVESTMENT INCOME REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 2.44% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 100.00% TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL ON-GOING REVENUES $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578 $578

ONGOING COSTS

POLICE DEPARTMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 42.82% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $91 $91 $91 $91 $91 $91 $91 $91 $91 $91 24.41% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COST
RESIDENTIAL $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 2.30%
NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 $16 4.26% NON-RESIDENTIAL $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 2.66%

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 11.99% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

LIBRARY COSTS
RESIDENTIAL $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 $43 11.56% NON-RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COSTS $363 $363 $363 $363 $363 $363 $363 $363 $363 $363 97.34% TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL COSTS $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 2.66% TOTAL ON-GOING COSTS $373 $373 $373 $373 $373 $373 $373 $373 $373 $373 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) ($10) TOTAL ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $206 $206 $206 $206 $206 $206 $206 $206 $206 $206 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 612 of 967
TABLE 8a
LAND USE SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY (Residential Only))
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

ONGOING REVENUES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768

ONGOING COSTS
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COSTS $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 613 of 967
TABLE 8b
LAND USE SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY (Commercial Only)
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

ONGOING REVENUES
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000

ONGOING COSTS
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL COSTS $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 614 of 967
TABLE 8c
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY (MIXED)
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 % FISCAL YEAR ($s x1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 OF TOTAL

ONGOING REVENUES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 100.00% TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUES $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 $0.0000 0.00% TOTAL ON-GOING REVENUES $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768 $578.3768

ONGOING COSTS
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COSTS $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 $362.8084 97.34% TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL COSTS $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 $9.9020 2.66% TOTAL ON-GOING COSTS $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 $372.7104 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 $215.5684 ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) ($9.9020) TOTAL ANNUAL ONGOING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 $205.6664 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE/COST RATIO 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 615 of 967
TABLE 9
CITY OF REDLANDS : MODEL
SCHOOL FEE MITIGATION (SB 50)

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Capacity Acreage SBE 50 fees
SFD 0.2260 SCHOOL DIST Elementary 600 10 $5,200
MFA 0.1362 Middle School 1000 20 $5,500
DEVELOPER FEE REVENUE PER SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT /1 $3,113 Mobile Home 0.1068 High School 2200 50 $7,200 DEVELOPER FEE REVENUE PER MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED UNIT /2 $1,431 MIDDLE SCHOOL DEVELOPER FEE REVENUE PER MOBILE HOME /3 $1,212 SFD 0.1310 MFA 0.0574
Mobile Home 0.0548

HIGH SCHOOL
SFD 0.1690
MFA 0.0565
Mobile Home 0.0493
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 TOTAL FISCAL YEAR ($s ×1,000) end of: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

CITY OF REDLANDS

ANNUAL PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SFD 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
MFA 523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 523
Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STUDENT PROJECTIONS

ELEMENTARY
SFD 4.068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
MFA 71.2326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIDDLE SCHOOL
SFD 2.358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
MFA 30.0202 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HIGH SCHOOL
SFD 3.042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
MFA 29.5495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ANNUAL SCHOOL FEE MITIGATION

ELEMENTARY
SFD $21,154 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MFA $370,410 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobile Home $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $391,563

MIDDLE SCHOOL
SFD $12,969 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MFA $165,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobile Home $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $178,080

HIGH SCHOOL
SFD $21,902 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MFA $212,756 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mobile Home $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $234,659

TOTAL SCHOOL FEE MITIGATION
SFD $56,025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,025
MFA $748,277 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $748,277
Mobile Home $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $804,302 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FEE MITIGATION
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 616 of 967
December 2023

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT

CITY OF REDLANDS

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 617 of 967
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 618 of 967
December 2023

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT

CITY OF REDLANDS

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

City of Redlands
Development Services Department, Planning Division
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Post Office Box 3005
Redlands, California 92373
(909) 798‐7555
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781‐9310
Project No. CRX2202
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 619 of 967
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 620 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................i FIGURES AND TABLES............................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. v

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE............................................................................ 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1

1.2 PURPOSE...............................................................................................................................1

1.3 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................2

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................... 3

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..............................................................................................................3

2.1.1 Regional Location and Access................................................................................................3

2.1.2 Site Characteristics and Current Site Conditions...................................................................3

2.1.3 General Plan and Zoning........................................................................................................7

2.1.4 Surrounding Land Uses..........................................................................................................7

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ...........................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Overall Development Concept.............................................................................................11

2.2.2 Construction and Phasing ....................................................................................................21

2.2.3 Grading ................................................................................................................................21

2.2.4 Access, Circulation, and Parking ..........................................................................................25

2.2.5 Landscaping and Open Space ..............................................................................................25

2.2.6 Design Elements ..................................................................................................................26

2.2.7 Infrastructure and Utilities ..................................................................................................26

2.3 REQUIRED ACTIONS............................................................................................................37

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 39

3.1 AESTHETICS.........................................................................................................................44

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES........................................................................49

3.3 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................52

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................63

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................70

3.6 ENERGY ...............................................................................................................................75

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..........................................................................................................79

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...........................................................................................86

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS............................................................................94

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..................................................................................101

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................112

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................114

3.13 NOISE ................................................................................................................................116 Regulatory Settings.........................................................................................................................120 Existing Settings..............................................................................................................................124 Ambient Noise Levels .....................................................................................................................125

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING............................................................................................140

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES...............................................................................................................142

3.16 RECREATION .....................................................................................................................148 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 621 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
ii

3.17 TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................150

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................154

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................160

3.20 WILDFIRE...........................................................................................................................165

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................167

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................. 171

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements...............................................................................171

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures...................................................................................171

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 182

APPENDICES
A‐1: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum A‐2: CalEEMod Results Report
B‐1: Biological Resources Assessment
B‐2: Burrowing Owl Survey Report
C: Cultural Resources Assessment
D: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
E‐1: Phase I ESA
E‐2: Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation
F‐1: PWQMP
F‐2: Conceptual Hydrology Study
G‐1:   Noise Survey Sheets
G‐2: FHWA Traffic Noise Printouts
G‐3: HVAC
H‐1: Traffic Study
H‐2: LOS Addendum
H‐3:

VMT Assessment
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 622 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
iii

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location.....................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Project Location .......................................................................................................................9 Figure 3: Tentative Parcel Map.............................................................................................................13 Figure 4: Tentative Tract Map...............................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Master Site Plan .....................................................................................................................19 Figure 6: Tentative Landscape Plan ......................................................................................................23 Figure 7: Conceptual Architectural Renderings....................................................................................27 Figure 8: Noise Monitoring Locations.................................................................................................127 TABLES
Table A: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting........................................................................................11 Table B: Preliminary Project Construction Phasing ..............................................................................21 Table C: Potential Permits and Approvals.............................................................................................37 Table D: SCAQMD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance.........................................53 Table E: Short‐Term Construction Emissions........................................................................................58 Table F: Project Operational Emissions ................................................................................................59 Table G: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (in Pounds Per Day)1.................................61 Table H: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption.......................................................................76 Table I: Estimated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................87 Table J: Consistency with the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS1..............................................................................89 Table K: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 GHG Inventory Sectors................................92 Table L: Consistency with General Plan and Climate Action Plan.........................................................93 Table M: Summary of Identified Hazardous Sites Near the Project Site ..............................................97 Table N: Definitions of Acoustical Terms............................................................................................118 Table O: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources..................................................................119 Table P: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria...............................................................................121 Table Q: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interpretation....................................................121 Table R: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards...................................................................................122 Table S: Maximum Permissible Exterior Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use...................................123 Table T: Long‐Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results.....................................................................125 Table U: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................129 Table V: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels......................................................................131 Table W: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levels.........................................132 Table X: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Scenario A ..........................134 Table Y: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Scenario B...........................135 Table Z: HVAC Noise Levels.................................................................................................................136 Table AA: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment................................................137 Table AB: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance .....................................................................138 Table AC: Potential Construction Vibration Damage..........................................................................139 Table AD: Redlands Unified School District Enrollment and Capacity Data .......................................145 Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program.................................................................173 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 623 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
iv
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 624 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
af acre‐feet
afy acre‐feet per year
AMTP Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Basin South Coast Air Basin
bgs below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
California Register California Register of Historical Resources CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cf cubic feet
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CIRP Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California City City of Redlands
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 625 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
vi
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COA Condition of Approval
CPTED Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan
DA drainage area
dB decibel
dBA A‐weighted decibel
DCV Design Capture Volume
DIF Development Impact Fee
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/ac dwelling units per acre
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC2021 CARB Emissions Factor 2021 Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area
EV/SD East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 626 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
vii
GPA General Plan Amendment
gpd gallons per day
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I‐10 Interstate 10
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
in/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IS Initial Study
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ldn day‐night average noise level
LDR Low‐Density Residential
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin minimum measured sound level
LOS level(s) of service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 627 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
viii
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton(s)
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
Non‐VHFHSZ Non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
Pb lead
PCC plain cement concrete
PCE passenger car equivalent
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
POTWs publicly owned treatment works
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRDs Permit Registration Documents
PRIMP Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program Project, proposed Project Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project REC recognized environmental condition
RFD Redlands Fire Department
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMS root‐mean‐square
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 628 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
ix
ROG reactive organic gas
RPD Redlands Police Department
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RSL Regional Screening Level
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RUSD Redlands Unified School District
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
sf square foot/feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARTS Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOx sulfur oxides
SR‐210 State Route 210
SR‐330 State Route 330
SR‐38 State Route 38
SRA Source Receptor Area
SSC Species of Special Concern
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 629 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
x
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VEC vapor encroachment condition
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WL Watch List
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 630 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 of thisInitial Study (IS) describesthe purpose, environmental authorization, the intended uses of the IS, documents incorporated by reference, and the processes and procedures governing the preparation of the environmental document. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Redlands (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has primary responsibility for compliance with CEQA and consideration of the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project (herein referred to as “Project” or “proposed Project”).

The IS is organized as follows:

Chapter 1.0 Introduction and Purpose provides a discussion of the Initial Study’s purpose, focus, and legal requirements.

Chapter 2.0 Project Description provides a detailed description of the proposed Project.

Chapter 3.0 Initial Study Checklist includes a checklist and accompanying analyses of the Project’s effect on the environment. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of the Project’s environmental impact.

Chapter 4.0 References details the references cited throughout the document.

Appendices Include the technical material prepared to support the analyses contained in the IS.

1.2 PURPOSE
CEQA requires that the proposed Project be reviewed to determine the environmental effects that would result if the Project were approved and implemented. The City is the Lead Agency and has the responsibility for preparing and adopting the associated environmental document prior to consideration of the approval of the proposed Project. The City has the authority to make decisions regarding discretionary actions relating to implementation of the proposed Project.

This IS has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines,1 and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City. The objective of the IS is to inform City decision‐makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, the public, and interested parties of the potential environmental consequences of the Project.

As established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c), the purposes of an IS are to:
 Provide the Lead Agency (City of Redlands) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND);
1   California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 through 15387.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 631 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
2  Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an ND or MND;  Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required;  Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;  Provide a factual basis for finding in an ND or MND that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
 Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
 Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.3 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
The City formally initiated the environmental process for the proposed Project with the preparation of this IS. The IS screens out those impacts that would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation, while identifying those issues that require further mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As identified in the following analyses, Project impacts related to various environmental issues either do not occur, are less than significant (when measured against established significance thresholds), or have been rendered less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures. Based on these analytical conclusions, this IS supports adoption of an MND for the proposed Project.

CEQA2 permits the incorporation by reference of all or portions of other documents that are generally available to the public. The IS has been prepared utilizing information from City planning and environmental documents, technical studies specifically prepared for the Project, and other publicly available data. The documents utilized in the IS are identified in Section 3.0 and are hereby incorporated by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Redlands, Planning Division.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 30‐day public review period. Written comments regarding this IS should be addressed to:

Ryan Murphy, Senior Planner
City of Redlands
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
P.O. Box 3005
Redlands, CA 92373
[email protected]
After the 30‐day public review period, consideration of comments raised during the public review period will be taken into account and addressed prior to adoption of the MND by the City. 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 632 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter describes the proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project (Project) submitted by Redlands Summit LLC (Applicant) that is evaluated in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The proposed Project includes the development of an approximately 24.4‐acre property (Project site) northwest of West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street that consists of three undeveloped parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 0167‐171‐04‐0000, 0167‐171‐05‐0000, and 0167‐171‐06‐0000). The Project site is located on the northwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street in the northern portion of the City of Redlands (City). The Applicant proposes to develop the Project site with 451 apartment units, 72 townhomes, and 18 single‐family detached homes, for a total of 541 units.

Pursuant to Section 15124(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter includes a description of the proposed Project’s location, objectives, and technical and environmental characteristics, which is followed by a summary of the intended uses of the IS/MND, a list of required permits and other approvals required to implement the Project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirementsrequired by federal, State, and local laws, regulations, or policies.

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The following describes the precise location and boundaries of the Project site, including its geographic context, and provides a brief overview of the existing land uses within and in the vicinity of the Project site.

2.1.1 Regional Location and Access
The approximately 24.4‐acre Project site is located on the northwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street in the northern area of the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is generally bounded by West Lugonia Avenue to the south, Karon Street to the east, a dirt road to the north, and fallow agricultural land to the west. Figure 1: Regional Location shows the location of the Project site within the region.

The Project site is located approximately 0.2 mile east of State Route 210 (SR‐210) and approximately

0.4 mile north of Interstate 10 (I‐10). The City of Loma Linda is located southwest of Redlands, the City of Highland is located to the north, and the City of San Bernardino is located to the west. The City of Yucaipa islocated to the east over the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Bernardino International Airport is located approximately 2.4 miles northwest of the Project site, west of SR‐210.

Regional access to the Project site is provided by I‐10 and SR‐210. The Project site is directly accessible via West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street.

2.1.2 Site Characteristics and Current Site Conditions
The Projectsite is currently undeveloped, generally rectangular in shape, and generally flat. Conditions on the site generally consist of disturbed vegetation, a few palm trees, and power utility poles. An open concrete irrigation canal runs parallel to the Project site’s northern boundary, and the remnants of a second north‐south irrigation canal cuts through the Projectsite. A dirt road along the northern boundary of the Project site provides a connection from Pennsylvania Avenue to Tennessee Street, west of the Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 633 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
4 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 634 of 967
ÄÆ38
ÄÆ210
§¨¦10
0 304.8
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - Redlands (1988), CA
I:\CRX2202\GIS\MXD\ProjLoc_USGS.mxd (10/26/2023)
FIGURE 1
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Regional Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Site
San
Bernardino
County
Riverside
County
Ã18
Ã79
Ã330
Ã173
Ã91
Ã210
Ã60
Ã38
Project
Location
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
Project Vicinity
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 635 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
6 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 636 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
7 Project site. An informal dirt walking path is located along the Project site’s southern boundary, adjacent to West Lugonia Street. Figure 2: Project Location depicts an aerial view of the Project site.

2.1.3 General Plan and Zoning
The Project site’s current zoning designation is East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District (EV/SD). The purpose of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan is to plan for large undeveloped areas along I‐10 to facilitate future industrial, commercial, and residential development in an orderly and aesthetic manner, provide a strong job base to support the local economy, and to ensure high‐quality development through design guidelines and standards. The intent of the Special Development District is to provide an alternative, more flexible site planning process which encourages creative and imaginative planning of administrative, professional, commercial or industrial, or mixed‐use development within the framework of a single comprehensive plan. Single‐family dwelling units on parcels of 20 acres or more are permitted as interim uses under the current EV/SD zoning. The EV/SD zoning does not permit, conditionally permit, or permit as an accessory use, higher residential densities. A zoning change from EV/SD to R‐3 Multiple Family Residential will be required to permit the proposed densities of the proposed Project’s apartment complex and townhomes(27.2 units per gross acre), and a zoning change from EV/SD to R‐1 Single Family Residential along Karon Street will be required to permit the proposed densities of the single‐family detached residences (5.33 dwelling units per gross acre).

The City’s General Plan currently designates most of the Project site as Commercial, which may permit residential and mixed uses consistent with the underlying zoning district. The Project site is also partly designated as Parks/Golf Courses and Low Density Residential, the latter of which allows for the development of detached single‐family dwellings at densities up to 6 dwelling units per acre on slopes up to 15 percent. The portion of the Project site designated as Low Density Residential is located directly adjacent to Karon Street. A General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the designation from Commercial and Parks/Golf Coursesto High Density Residential will be required to permit the proposed higher housing densities of the proposed Project’s apartment complex and townhomes.3 Development within the City, including the Project site, is regulated by the City of Redlands’s Citywide Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines).

2.1.4 Surrounding Land Uses
The Projectsite is bordered by West Lugonia Avenue to the south, Karon Street and an existing residential community to the east, a dirt road and fallow agricultural land to the north, and fallow agricultural land to the west followed by Tennessee Street and SR‐210. Table A: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting summarizes the existing land uses, General Plan designations, and zoning designations on the Project site and surrounding properties.

3 No proposed development project with density levels in excess of 18 dwelling units to the acre or a structure in excess of 35 feet in height shall be approved unless specific mandatory findings are made, and the development project is approved by four‐fifths vote of the total authorized membership of the City Council. (Redlands General Plan 2035. Page 4‐10.)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 637 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
8 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 638 of 967
Karon St
Sharon Rd
Pennsylvania Ave
Lugonia Ave
0 304.8
SOURCE: Maxar Imagery (2023)
I:\CRX2202\GIS\MXD\Proj_Location.mxd (10/26/2023)
FIGURE 2
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Project Location
LEGEND
Project Site
0 87.5 175
FEET
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 639 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
10 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 640 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
11 Table A: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Project Site Undeveloped, Vacant Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Commercial (C),
Parks/Golf Courses
(PG), Low Density
Residential (LDR)
High Density
Residential
(HDR)
and Low
Density
Residential
(LDR)
East Valley Corridor
Specific Plan/Special
Development
(EV/SD)
Multiple
Family
Residential
District (R‐3)
and Single‐
Family
Residential
(R‐1)
North Undeveloped, Vacant Commercial (C) Concept Plan 4 (CP4) East Single‐Family Residential Low Density Residential (LDR) Single Family Residential District (R‐1) South Commercial,
Undeveloped, Vacant
Commercial (C) East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/
General Commercial (EV/CG),
Agricultural District 1 (A‐1)
West Undeveloped, Vacant Commercial (C) East Valley Specific Plan/Special Development (EV/SD)
Source: City of Redlands. April 11, 2022. Redlands General Plan Land Use Map. https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐ attachments/generalplan2035.pdf?1649693557 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Source: City of Redlands. April 11, 2022. City of Redlands – Zoning Map. https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/ zoning.pdf?1649714270 (accessed October 27, 2023).

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.2.1 Overall Development Concept
The proposed Project includes the subdivision of the Project site into three parcels in order to facilitate the development of an apartment complex neighborhood, a townhome neighborhood (collectively, the apartment complex and townhomes are referred to as Neighborhood A), and a neighborhood of single‐ family detached homes (Neighborhood B) on the Project site. The detached single‐family homes would be located on Parcel 1, the townhomes neighborhood would be located on Parcel 2, and the apartment complex neighborhood would be located on Parcel 3. Figure 3: Tentative Parcel Map shows the proposed subdivision of the Project site. The proposed Project also includes the approval of a Tentative Tract Map, shown in Figure 4: Tentative Tract Map, for the 18 single‐family residential parcels along Karon Street as well as a neighborhood park at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street.

The proposed Project includes the construction of 451 apartment units, 72 townhome units, and 18 single family residences, for a total of 541 residential units. Of the 451 apartment units, 27 would be very low‐ income units. The remaining apartment, townhome, and single‐family residential units are expected to be sold at market rate (the above‐moderate income level). The apartment complex and townhome neighborhood would have a proposed density of 27.2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and the neighborhood or single‐family dwellings would have a proposed density of 5.33 du/ac. Figure 5: Master Site Plan provides the proposed boundaries of the apartment units, townhomes units, and single‐family residences. The proposed Project would also include a small parklet at the northeastern corner of the Project site.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 641 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
12 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 642 of 967
FEET
0 110 220
FIGURE 3
I:\CRX2202\G\Parcel_Map.ai (10/26/2023)
SOURCE: AO Group
Tenta�ve Parcel Map
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 643 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
14 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 644 of 967
FEET
0 100 200
FIGURE 4
I:\CRX2202\G\Tract_Map.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: DRC Engineering
Tenta�ve Tract Map
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 645 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
16 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 646 of 967
FEET
0 60 120
FIGURE 4
I:\CRX2202\G\Tract_Map.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: DRC Engineering
Tenta�ve Tract Map
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 647 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
18 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 648 of 967
FEET
0 85 170
FIGURE 5
I:\CRX2202\G\Site_Plan.ai (10/26/2023)
SOURCE: AO Group
Master Site Plan
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 649 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
20 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 650 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
21 In addition to the proposed residential communities, the proposed Project would construct an extension of Pennsylvania Avenue along the northern edge of the Project site. The Pennsylvania Avenue extension would either end in a cul‐de‐sac (Scenario A) or connect to the existing Pennsylvania Avenue and residential community to the east (Scenario B).

The proposed apartment complex neighborhood would include a clubhouse and fitness center, a pool area, a kids club, a mail room, a fenced dog park, and a series of greenbelts that feature decorative walkways, fire pits, and BBQ grills. The proposed townhome neighborhood would include a central recreation building with an entertainment courtyard and pool as well as two pocket parks that would feature BBQ grills and fire pits. The single‐family residential neighborhood would include a neighborhood park at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street. Figure 6: Tentative Landscape Plan provides an illustrative view of the proposed open space layout and the locations of proposed amenities.

The discretionary actions required for the Project include issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, approval of a Tentative Tract Map, approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, and the related actions listed below in Required Actions.

2.2.2 Construction and Phasing
Project construction would include site preparation, installation of utilities, paving, building construction, landscaping, architectural coating, and paving activities. The proposed Project would be constructed over 31 months, with construction anticipated to begin in April 2024. Construction activities are anticipated to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. This is consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which prohibits operation of construction equipment between weekday hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

The preliminary Project construction phasing is presented below in Table B: Preliminary Project Construction Phasing.

Table B: Preliminary Project Construction Phasing
Phase Begin Date End Date
Grading June 1, 2025 August 1, 2025
Building Construction August 2, 2025 January 11, 2028
Paving November 26, 2027 January 11, 2028
Architectural Coating October 12, 2025 January 11, 2028 Source: Michael Baker International. 2023. Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum for the Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village – City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California, Appendix A: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data. June 22.

2.2.3 Grading
The Project is anticipated to result in a balanced site, and no import or export of soil is anticipated.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 651 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
22 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 652 of 967
FEET
0 94 188
FIGURE 6
I:\CRX2202\G\Landscape_Plan.ai (8/11/2023)SOURCE: AO Architects Tenta
Ɵve Landscape Plan
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 653 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
24 This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 654 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
25 2.2.4 Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways from West Lugonia Avenue (a signalized intersection at New York Street/West Lugonia Avenue and a right‐in/right‐out driveway on the southwest corner of the Project site), one driveway from the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension, and one driveway from Karon Street. As discussed above, the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension would either end in a cul‐de‐sac just west of the existing three‐legged intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street or would extend from Karon Street west to Tennessee Street, creating a complete connection between Tennessee Street and the existing Pennsylvania Avenue east of Karon Street.

On‐site parking within the apartment complex and townhome neighborhoods would be provided via a 26‐ foot‐wide internalstreetsystem within each neighborhood. The apartment complex neighborhood would include 241 garage parking spaces, 325 carport spaces, 7 parallel parking spaces, 139 open stall parking spaces, and 32 electric vehicle charging spaces for a total of 744 parking spaces for residents. The townhome neighborhood would include 144 garage parking spaces for residents and 21 guest parking spaces for a total of 165 parking spaces. Each of the 18 single‐family detached homes would include a 2‐ car garage, for a total of 36 parking spaces. Overall, the proposed Project would include a total of 945 parking spaces. The internal street system would also serve as a fire access system for first responders.

Figure 6 provides an illustrative view of the proposed landscape design, including the general locations of parkway and street tree plantings, the planned tree species mix, and the locations of proposed sidewalks and bike paths as well as the proposed recreation lawn and play area. As shown in Figure 6, pedestrian access within the Projectsite would be provided via internal walkways. A 6‐foot‐wide sidewalk would also be provided along West Lugonia Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Karon Street abutting the Projectsite.

2.2.5 Landscaping and Open Space
Based on the City of Redlands’s Citywide Design Guidelines, the Project’s proposed plant palette would be comprised of plant materials and trees known to thrive in the local climate and soil conditions. As described above, Figure 6 provides a description of the tree species that are proposed to be planted.

Proposed landscaping on the Project site would be consistent with the landscaping characteristics of surrounding residential neighborhoods and would complement the proposed development and surrounding area.

The Project proposes construction of an internal greenbelt area in the apartment complex that includes a 40‐foot to 60‐foot‐wide linear east/west garden and a seating area framed by a central turf oval and trees.

In addition, a 15‐foot landscape easement would be established along the Project site boundary along West Lugonia Avenue.

The proposed Project would provide a total of 201,550 square feet (sf) of private open space in the apartment complex neighborhood. A total of 32,029 sf of open space would be provided in the townhome neighborhood.

The proposed Project would also provide a private open space parklet in the northeastern corner of the Project site, which would be used by residents of the proposed single‐family neighborhood.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 655 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
26 2.2.6 Design Elements
A distinct architectural style is proposed for the Project’s residential buildings. The individual apartment buildings would not exceed 35 feet in height, the townhome buildings would not exceed 34 feet in height, and each single‐family residential home would not exceed 20 feet in height. The architectural styles for each type of residential dwelling (apartment, townhome, and detached single‐family unit) are presented in Figure 7: Conceptual Architectural Renderings (5 sheets).

2.2.7 Infrastructure and Utilities
The Project site is located in an urbanized area, and existing utilities and infrastructure are available for interconnection generally adjacent to or in close proximity to the site. The Project would require installation of the following utility connectionsto the satisfaction of the applicable utility providers: water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Connections to existing utility infrastructure would occur within the adjacent public rights‐of‐way.

2.2.7.1 Water
Domestic water service to the Project site would be provided via existing lines beneath Karon Street and West Lugonia Avenue. The proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension along the northern site boundary would include pipeline connections that would tie into the existing water line in Karon Street.

2.2.7.2 Wastewater
Sewer service to the Project site would be provided via lines that would connect to the existing 10‐inch sewer line along West Lugonia Avenue and the existing 8‐inch sewer line along Karon Street.

2.2.7.3 Stormwater
In its existing undeveloped condition, the Project site is covered entirely by pervious surfaces (1,064,038 sf) and is generally flat. The proposed Project would increase the impervious surface coverage on the Project site compared to existing conditions. Upon completion of the Project, a total of approximately 820,350 sf would be covered by impervious surfaces (80 percent of the Project site) and approximately 243,688 sf would be covered by pervious surfaces (20 percent of the Project site).

Because there are no storm drain connections available on the Project site, the overall drainage concept of the proposed Project is to reduce storm flows from the Project site through underground detention systems which would ultimately discharge the reduced flows onto the surrounding public streets. The apartment neighborhood would contain four separate underground detention chambers with a total storage volume of 94,800 cubic feet (cf). Storm flows from this underground detention/infiltration system would discharge reduced flows to Lugonia Avenue through a sidewalk culvert. The townhome neighborhood would contain two separate underground detention chambers with a total storage volume of 23,760 cf and would discharge reduced flows to the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension through a sidewalk culvert. The single‐family neighborhood would contain two separate underground detention chambers, one forstorm flows draining north towards Pennsylvania Avenue and the other forstorm flows draining south to Lugonia Avenue. The underground detention chamber for storm flows draining north would have a total storage volume of 4,610 cf, and the underground detention chamber for southern drainage would have a total storage volume of 11,530 cf. Both underground detention systems would discharge reduced flows to the respective streets through a sidewalk culvert.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 656 of 967
FIGURE 7.1
I:\CRX2202\G\Architecture_Renderings.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: AO Architects

NOT TO SCALE
Perspec�ve From Lugonia Ave. - Main Entry
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 657 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
28 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 658 of 967
FIGURE 7.2
I:\CRX2202\G\Architecture_Renderings.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: AO Architects

NOT TO SCALE
Perspec�ve of Mul�-Family Internal Courtyard
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 659 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
30 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 660 of 967
FIGURE 7.3
I:\CRX2202\G\Architecture_Renderings.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: AO Architects

NOT TO SCALE
Perspec�ve of Amenity Pool Area
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 661 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
32 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 662 of 967
FIGURE 7.4
I:\CRX2202\G\Architecture_Renderings.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: AO Architects

NOT TO SCALE
Perspec�ve of Townhomes
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 663 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
34 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 664 of 967
FIGURE 7.5
I:\CRX2202\G\Architecture_Renderings.ai (8/11/2023)
SOURCE: AO Architects

NOT TO SCALE
Perspec�ve of Single Family Neighborhood
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 665 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
36 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 666 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
37 2.2.7.4 Electricity and Gas
Electrical service would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) through connections to the existing overhead lines along Karon Street and West Lugonia Avenue. Two power poles on Lugonia Avenue, one power pole at the corner of Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street, and two power poles on Karon Street would be removed or relocated as part of the proposed Project. All other existing power poles in the vicinity of the Project site would be protected in place. Natural gas service would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) through connectionsto the existing 2‐inch line beneath West Lugonia Avenue.

2.2.7.5 Telecommunication
Telecommunication services would be provided by Verizon.

2.3 REQUIRED ACTIONS
While the City is the Lead Agency for the Project under CEQA, other agencies also have discretionary authority related to the Project and approvals or serve as a responsible and/or trustee agency in connection to the Project as established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(2), “If a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA should be listed.” A list of these agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be required is provided in Table C: Potential Permits and Approvals.

Table C: Potential Permits and Approvals
Lead Agency Permits/Approvals
City of Redlands  Approval of a ‘Change in Zone’
 Approval of a ‘General Plan Amendment’
 Approval of a ‘Specific Plan Amendment’
 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for New Construction  Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20469
 Approval of Tentative Tract Maps No. 20490 and 20491
 Commission Review and Approvals No. 940, 941, and 942 to approve the site plan, site improvements, landscaping plans, and architectural elevations for each portion of the Project
 Environmental review
Other Agencies/Entities
Redlands Fire Department  Review/Approve fire truck access and site fire flow design City of Redlands Building Division  Issuance of Building Permits for new home construction City of Redlands Municipal Utilities
and Engineering Department
 Issuance of Final Map
 Connection to water system
 Connection to wastewater system
Southern California Edison and
Southern California Gas Company
 Connection of electricity/natural gas service
Source: LSA (2022).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 667 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
38 This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 668 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
39 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

1. Project Title:

The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Redlands
Development Services Department, Planning Division
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Post Office Box 3005
Redlands, California 92373

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Ryan Murphy, Senior Planner
(909) 798‐7555 ext. 7308
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The approximately 24.4‐acre Project site is located on the northwest corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street in the northern area of the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County, California. The Project site is generally bounded by West Lugonia Avenue to the south, Karon Street to the east, a dirt road to the north, and fallow agricultural land to the west. Figure 1: Regional Location shows the location of the project site within the region.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Redlands Summit LLC
2459 Huntington Drive
San Marino, California 91108

6. General Plan Designation:

Existing: Commercial, Parks/Golf Courses, Low Density Residential Proposed: High Density Residential, Low Density Residential

7. Zoning:

Existing: East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District Proposed: R‐1 (Single Family Residential) and R‐3 (Multiple Family Residential)

8. Description of Property:

The Project site is currently undeveloped, generally rectangular in shape, and generally flat.

Conditions on the site generally consist of disturbed vegetation, a few palm trees, and power utility poles. An open concrete irrigation canal runs parallel to the northern Project site boundary, and the remnants of a second north‐south concrete irrigation canal cuts through the Project site. A dirt road along the northern boundary of the Project site provides a connection from Pennsylvania Avenue to Tennessee Street, west of the Project site. An informal dirt walking path is located along the southern Project site boundary, adjacent to West Lugonia Street. Figure 2: Project Location depicts an aerial view of the Project site.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 669 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
40 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project site is bordered by West Lugonia Avenue to the south, Karon Street and an existing residential community to the east, a dirt road and fallow agricultural land to the north, and fallow agricultural land to the west followed by Tennessee Street and State Route 210 (SR‐210). Table A:

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting summarizesthe existing land uses, General Plan designations, and zoning designations on the Project site and surrounding properties.

10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval is Required:

Approvals from other regulatory agencies may also be required and are listed as follows:
 N/A

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuantto Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? Ifso, has consultation begun? Yes. Please refer to Checklist Section 3.17.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.). Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 670 of 967
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 671 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
42 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or lessthan significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there issubstantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross‐referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 672 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
43 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 673 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
44 3.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? (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 that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
   
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Scenic resources and vistas in the City of Redlands consist of the scenic corridors and views to and from open spaces, canyonlands, hillsides, groves, historic districts and resources, and the San Bernardino Mountains to the north.

The Project site is currently undeveloped, and conditions on the site generally consist of disturbed vegetation (such as grasses and weeds), a few palm trees, and power utility poles. The Project site is bordered by West Lugonia Avenue to the south followed by commercial land uses and undeveloped land, Karon Street and an existing residential community to the east, a dirt road and fallow agricultural land to the north, and fallow agricultural land to the west followed by Tennessee Street and SR‐210. A public park, Texonia Park, exists to the east of the existing residential community, approximately 0.1 mile east of the Projectsite. The Projectsite isrelatively level with no topographical features existing on the site. However, existing development, specifically the existing residential community east of the Project site, partially obscures views of the distant San Bernardino Mountains to the north.

The proposed Project would result in the construction of 451 apartment units, 72 townhomes, and 18 single‐family detached homes, for a total of 541 units. The individual apartment buildings would not exceed 35 feet in height. The townhome buildings would not exceed 34 feet in height, and each single‐ family residential home would not exceed 20 feet in height. The proposed heights of the apartment and townhouse buildings would be below the maximum building height of fourstories(approximately 43 feet) Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 674 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
45 allowed under the proposed R‐3 zoning designation, and the proposed height of the single‐family units would be below the maximum building height of 2.5 stories (approximately 35 feet). Although the construction of these homes would partially obscure the view of the San Bernardino Mountains from the Projectsite itself, partial views of the San Bernardino Mountains would still exist from nearby public access points, including Karon Street to the east of the Project site, portions of West Lugonia Avenue, and the proposed Pennsylvania Street extension.

As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas. No mitigation is required.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),4 no officially designated State Scenic Highways exist in the City of Redlands. Two highways, State Route 330 (SR‐330) north of the City of Highland, approximately 4.2 miles north of the Projectsite, and State Route 38 (SR‐38) approximately 0.7 mile east of the Project site, are considered Eligible State Scenic Highways, presumably due to their views of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and east. However, neither of these highways are officially designated as State Scenic Highways.

Although the Project site is within the viewshed of the section of SR‐330 that is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway, due to its distance from the highway, the Project site represents a very small portion of the overall panorama. The Project site is not visible from SR‐38 due to intervening, existing development. Given that the Project site is not visible from the eligible section of SR‐38 and the Project would not exceed the four‐story building height limit that applies to the R‐3 zone or the 2.5‐story building height limit that applies to the R‐1 zone, the Project would not damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway viewshed would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c. In non‐urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and itssurroundings? (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? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located on the edge of an urban neighborhood within the City of Redlands. Although the Project site is bordered by undeveloped land to the north, south, and west, the proposed Project can be seen as an extension of the urban neighborhood to the east. In addition, as discussed above in Threshold 3.1(b), public views from publicly accessible vantage points, including Karon Street, portions of West Lugonia Avenue, and the proposed Pennsylvania Street extension, would not be substantially degraded as a result of the proposed Project actions. 4 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/ programs/design/lap‐landscape‐architecture‐and‐community‐livability/lap‐liv‐i‐scenic‐highways (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 675 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
46 The construction phase of the Project would introduce the use of machinery such as excavators and bulldozers, and the presence of the construction equipment, as well as the construction activities, would temporarily alter the visual character of the Project site. Construction staging areas, including earth stockpiling, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities would contribute to a disturbed site, which could be perceived by some viewers as a potential visual impact. Since construction activities would be temporary, they would not create a significant permanent impact on the visual character or quality of the Project site and its surroundings.

Upon completion of the Project, public views of the Projectsite along Karon Street, West Lugonia Avenue, and the proposed Pennsylvania Street extension would include streetscape landscaping, apartment buildings, townhome buildings, and single‐family dwellings, which would be developed to a similar mass, color, and height as surrounding existing residential uses. As such, public views of the Project site would change to be similar to the views of the existing residential communities to the east. The proposed amenities for the apartment complex and townhome neighborhoods would be within those communities and would not be visible from public streets. In addition, the landscape frontage along West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street would provide a visual buffer that would allow for an aesthetically pleasing transition to the development within the Project site. The proposed Project would result in a change in the visual character of the site; however, such changes would not be out of line with the existing pattern of land uses surrounding the Project site. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed Project would not generate a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

The proposed Project would be developed on a site that is currently mostly designated for Commercial land uses pursuant to the City’s General Plan, with portions of the site designated as Parks/Golf Courses and Low Density Residential uses. The portion of the Project site designated for Low Density Residential uses is located directly adjacent to Karon Street. Implementation of the proposed Project would develop this portion of the Project site with 18 single‐family dwellings at a proposed density of 5.33 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which would not exceed the 6.0 du/ac density limit of the Low‐Density Residential land use designation. A General Plan Amendment (GPA) would be required to change the Commercial and Parks/Golf Courses land use designations to High Density Residential in order to permit the proposed higher housing densities of the apartment complex and townhome neighborhoods. The High‐Density Residential designation allows for up to 29 dwelling units per acre. Implementation of the proposed Project would develop this portion of the Project site with 451 apartment units and 72 townhome units for a proposed density of 27.2 du/ac, which would not exceed the density limit of the High‐Density Residential land use designation.

The Project site is currently zoned as East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District (EV/SD). Single‐family dwelling units on parcels of 20 acres or more are permitted as interim uses under the current EV/SD zoning. The EV/SD zoning does not permit, conditionally permit, or permit as an accessory use, higher residential densities. A zoning change from EV/SD to R‐3 Multiple Family Residential will be required to permit the proposed densities of the apartment complex and townhome neighborhood (27.2 units per gross acre), and a zoning change from EV/SD to R‐1 Single Family Residential along Karon Street will be required to permit the proposed densities of the single‐family detached residences (5.33 dwelling units per gross acre). The apartment and townhome residential units proposed for the Project would be no taller than 34 feet in height, which would be under the maximum building height of four stories (approximately 43 feet tall), pursuant to the R‐3 zoning designation. The proposed height of the Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 676 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
47 single‐family units would be not taller than 20 feet, which would be below the maximum building height of 2.5 stories (approximately 35 feet) pursuant to the R‐1 zoning designation.

Pertaining to development of fences, landscaping and walls on the Project site, the Project Applicant would develop such features in compliance with Chapter 18.168 of the Redlands Zoning Code. The proposed Project would be designed to be consistent with surrounding existing neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Project site. Colored architectural exhibits of the proposed Project are shown in Figure 7 in the Project Description. These design elements would be complementary of the surrounding visual character of the area and would be consistent with design guidelinesin accordance with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts to the visual character or quality of the Project site and its surroundings would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Currently, nighttime lighting is produced by surrounding residential development, street lighting, and vehicles on adjacent roadways. Although the Project site is bordered by undeveloped land to the north,south, and west, the proposed Project actions can be seen as an extension of the existing neighborhood to the east. The proposed Project would add residential uses and vehicle trips that would incrementally increase ambient nighttime illumination in the area. The proposed Project would incorporate street and pedestrian lighting at entrances and exits to the neighborhood, streetlights, and lighting on individual residential units.

All lighting associated with the Project would be shielded such that it would minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties. Through compliance with City zoning and municipal code regulations, lighting would not substantially affect daytime or nighttime views in the Project vicinity.

Glare also can be produced during the daytime and is usually associated with reflective building materials, such as glass, stainless steel, aluminum, and photovoltaic panels. Building materials for the proposed residential development would generally consist of stucco facades, and wood or stone siding. Glass windows would be incorporated into the new home design to be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding development in accordance with development standards established for the residential land use and zoning designations of the City of Redlands. On January 1, 2020, the California Solar Mandate went into effect requiring all new residential development (single‐family and multi‐family development) up to three stories in height to install an individual solar panel system for each residential unit. The residential units developed on the Project site would include rooftop photovoltaic panels that would be incorporated as part of the Project design. In the past, such photovoltaic panels were a source of glare that could potentially affect daytime views, especially for aircraft flying in such areas. However, solar panel design has advanced in recent years to increase the amount of sunlight that is absorbed and converted to electricity, thereby decreasing the amount of solar energy that is reflected. In general, since the whole concept of efficient solar power is to absorb as much light as possible, while reflecting as little light as possible, standard solar panels produce less glare and reflection than standard window glass.

Technically, solar panels use “high transmission, low iron glass” which absorbs more light, producing a Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 677 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
48 smaller amount of glare and reflectance than normal glass does.5 Based on this, installation of rooftop solar photovoltaic panels on the Project’s residential units would not increase glare in the area.

The Projectsite perimeter would be developed with drought‐tolerantstreet trees, decorative landscaping, architectural features, and other streetscape design techniques to minimize light spillage onto neighboring areas. Additionally, the proposed Project would not utilize high gloss or reflective materials that would cause glare or reflection or generate excessive light. Therefore, impacts from new sources of substantial light or glare would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

5 Colton, Rodger D., Sheehan Fisher, and Colton Public Finance and General Economics. 2014. Assessing Rooftop Solar PV Glare in Dense Urban Residential Neighborhoods: Determining Whether and How Much of a Problem. November 16, 2014.

Website: http://www.fsconline.com/downloads/Papers/2014%2011%20Solar_Glare.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 678 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
49 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
   
a. Would the project 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? No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently undeveloped and generally consists of disturbed vegetation, a few palm trees, and power utility poles. According to the City’s General Plan and the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project site is designated as Grazing Land.6,7 Additional Grazing Land is located to the north and west of the site, while the land to the south and east is designated as Urban and Built‐Up Land. The Projectsite is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. Therefore, implementation 6 City of Redlands. 2017. General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Final, SCH #2016081041.

Figure 3.2‐1: Farmland Classifications. City of Redlands. July 21. 7 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 679 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
50 of the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐agricultural use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently zoned East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District (EV/SD). The purpose of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan is to plan for large undeveloped areas along Interstate 10 (I‐10) to facilitate future industrial, commercial, and residential development in an orderly and aesthetic manner, to provide a strong job base to support the local economy, and to ensure high‐quality development through design guidelines and standards. The Project site is not currently zoned for agricultural use. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract.8 Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, nor would it conflict with a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
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
Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Project site is currently zoned East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District (EV/SD). The Projectsite is notzoned asforest 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)). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest resources. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently undeveloped and generally consists of disturbed vegetation, a few palm trees, and power utility poles. The Project site is not occupied by forest land.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. e. Would the project 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
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not adjacent to farmland or forest land, or land that is zoned for agricultural or forestry use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of 8   City of Redlands. General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Final, SCH #2016081041. Figure

3.2‐1: Farmland Classifications. City of Redlands. July 21, 2017 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 680 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
51 Farmland to non‐agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 681 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
52 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?    
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non‐attainment under
an applicable Federal or State ambient air
quality standard
   
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?    
d. Result in other emissions, such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
   
The Project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the Basin. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act mandate the control and reduction of specific air pollutants. Under these acts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for specific "criteria" pollutants, designed to protect public health and welfare. Primary criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Secondary criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). The ambient air quality standard for each criteria pollutant represents the level that is considered safe to the public and avoids specific adverse health effects associated with each criteria pollutant.

The Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5, and nonattainment for the State PM10 standard. In addition, the Basin is in attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, CO, SO2, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. The SCAQMD has established project‐level thresholds for VOCs, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 shown in Table D: SCAQMD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance. The SCAQMD considers any project in the Basin with construction‐ or operation‐related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds below to have potentially significant impacts.

The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum prepared by Michael Baker International and dated June 22, 2023 (refer to Appendix A‐1 of this IS/MND).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 682 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
53 Table D: SCAQMD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance
Emission Source Pollutant Emissions Threshold (lbs/day) VOCs NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Operation Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March.

Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/south‐coast‐aqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐ thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25 (accessed October 27, 2023).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and federal air quality standards. The 2022 AQMP is a regional and multi‐agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the USEPA.

The 2022 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Additionally, the 2022 AQMP utilized information and data from the SCAG and its 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS. The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the 2022 AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:

Criterion 1: With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.

1. Would the project result in an increase in the frequency orseverity of existing air quality violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed under impact thresholds b and c, the Project’s short‐term construction emissions, long‐term operational emissions, and localized concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would result in less than significant impacts during Project construction and operations.

Therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. It is noted that because VOCs are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 683 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
54 standard or localized threshold for VOCs; due to the role VOC plays in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. As such, the Project would not cause or contribute to localized air quality violations or delay the attainment of air quality standard or interim emissions reductions specified in the 2022 AQMP.

2. Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed below in Responses 3.3(b) and (c), the proposed Project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds for regional and localized emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.

3. Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
As discussed in Responses 3.3(b) and (c), the proposed Project would result in lessthan significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during Project construction and operation. As such, the proposed Project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP interim emissions reductions.

Criterion 2: With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not a proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP.

Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.

1. Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
A project is consistent with the 2022 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2022 AQMP. In the case of the 2022 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the General Plan, SCAG’sregional growth forecast, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth.

The majority of the Project site is currently designated Commercial, with the eastern portion designated Low‐Density Residential (LDR) and a small area in the center of the site designated as Parks/Golf Courses.9 The Commercial land use category designates areas for the development of a wide range of commercial uses, including neighborhood‐serving stores and convenience centers, regional commercial centers, and commercial recreation. The LDR land use category designates areas intended to be developed at densities of up to 6 dwelling units per acres.

Park/Golf Courses includes both public and private facilities developed for outdoor active or 9   City of Redlands. 2022. City of Redlands General Plan Land Use Map. April. Website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/ main/files/file‐attachments/generalplan2035.pdf?1649693557 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 684 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
55 passive recreation, trails within linear parks, and golf courses. Further, the site is currently zoned as Special Development District (EV/SD) within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.10 The Special Development District is intended to provide an alternative, more flexible site planning process which encourages creative and imaginative planning of administrative professional, commercial, or industrial developments, or a mixture of such uses, within the framework of a single cohesive concept plan. The Project proposesto construct a mixture of multi‐family, townhomes, and single‐ family residential development for a total of 541 residential units surrounded by existing commercial and residential uses. As such, the proposed Project would require City discretionary approvals of a Zone Change and a General Plan Amendment, among others. As discussed above, the Project site is currently undeveloped with no existing commercial, residential, or park or recreational uses. The proposed residential development would be considered “an efficient use of the land” and increase the Project site’s development potential.

Moreover, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan in regard to population and housing upon the City’s approval of the required permits. The City’s population estimate as of January 1, 2022, is 72,585 persons.11 The Project would induce population growth directly through the construction of 541 residential units. Based on an average household size of 2.68 for the City of Redlands12, the Project would result in a direct population increase of approximately 1,450 persons. While it is likely that future residents already live in the City, this analysis conservatively assumes all 1,450 future residents would move into the City. SCAG growth forecasts estimate the City’s population to reach 80,800 persons by 2045, representing an estimated total increase of 11,300 persons between 2016 and 2045.13 The Project’s potential direct population growth (1,450 persons) therefore represents approximately 12.83 percent of the City’s anticipated growth between 2016 and 2045, and a nominal amount (approximately 1.73 percent) of the City’s total projected 2045 population. Assuch, the Project would be consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity and would be considered consistent with the General Plan upon the City’s approvals of the required permits. It should be noted that the proposed residential development would also contribute to satisfying the City’s housing needs as indicated by Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Further, the population and housing growth projections, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would be consistent with the projections.

2. Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed Project would not require mitigation and would result in less than significant air quality impacts (refer to Responses 3.3(b) and (c) below). In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 403 that requires excessive 10   City of Redlands. 2022. City of Redlands ‐ Zoning Map. April. Website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐ attachments/zoning.pdf?1649714270 (accessed October 27, 2023). 11   California Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021‐ 2022, with 2020 Benchmark. Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E‐5/ (accessed October 27, 2023). 12 Ibid. 13   Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS Final Connect SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast, adopted September 3, 2020. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/0903f connectsocal_demographics‐and‐growth‐forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 685 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
56 fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, and Rule 1113 that regulates the reactive organic gas (ROG) content of paint. As such, the proposed Project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.

3. Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS. The Projectsite is within an urbanized area, with the nearest busstop serving OmniTrans Bus line 15 located along West Lugonia Avenue approximately 400 feet to the west of the site.

Surrounding land usesinclude undeveloped land to the north,single‐family residencesto the east, commercial land uses and undeveloped land to the south, and undeveloped land to the west with transportation uses (i.e., Tennessee Street and SR‐210) located farther west. Further, the Project would provide bicycle parking spaces and electric vehicle charging stations on site to promote alternative transportation options. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS.

In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long‐term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed Project would not result in a long‐term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. Also, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2022 AQMP for control of fugitive dust (refer to Response 3.3(b)). As discussed above, the proposed Project’s long‐term influence would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and, therefore, it would be considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP.
b. Would the project 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
Discussion of Effects: As identified above, the Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the federal and State standardsfor O3 and PM2.5. The Basin’s nonattainmentstatusis attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact.

No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.

Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table D, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not necessary. The following analysis assessesthe potential project‐level air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 686 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
57 Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by site preparation and grading activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOX, VOCs, directly emitted PM2.5 or PM10, and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed Project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, whereas fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SCAQMD has established Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which would require the Project Applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period. The Rule 403 measures that were incorporated in this analysis include:
 Water active sites at least three times daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
 Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.  Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.

In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), NOX, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

The Project would be constructed over 31 months, with construction anticipated to begin in April 202414.

Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel‐powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) program defaults. The construction equipment list was provided by the Project Applicant and used in the CalEEMod analysis. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of 14   Since the time this analysis was prepared, the construction year has changed to 2025. As the analysis year increases, emission factors decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by less polluting equipment and emission regulations becoming more stringent. Therefore, the construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a more conservative analysis.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 687 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
58 construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on or off site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared using CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A‐2 for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table E: Short‐Term Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short‐ term construction emissions.

Table E: Short‐Term Construction Emissions
Emission Sources   Pollutants (lbs/day)1
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2024)
Construction Related Emissions2 4.24 23.60 56.60 0.06 6.90 2.23 Year 2 (2025)
Construction Related Emissions 3.83 21.40 53.60 0.06 6.79 2.13 Year 3 (2026)
Construction Related Emissions 58.60 30.00 71.40 0.08 8.44 2.74 Maximum Daily Emissions 58.60 30.00 71.40 0.08 8.44 2.74 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Emissions? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum  (Michael Baker, June 2023).

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1.

2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires:  properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
As shown in Table E, construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM2.5, and PM10. Construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site, and Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures.

Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 would greatly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, all architectural coatings for the proposed Project’s structures would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the ROG content of paint. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Emissions. Long‐term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from Project‐related traffic, and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. Emissions associated with each of these sources were calculated and are discussed below.

Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.

Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5); however, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Based on the Traffic Study prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix H‐1), the proposed Project would Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 688 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
59 result in approximately 3,728 average daily trips, with 228 a.m. peak hour trips and 288 p.m. peak hour trips.

Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non‐hearth) usage associated with the proposed residential development. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Criteria air pollutant emissions from electricity use were not quantified since criteria pollutants emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is off site. Therefore, energy source emissions from electricity usage would be zero and the emissions would only be generated from consumption of the natural gas.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the Project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the Project would include emissionsfrom the use of landscaping equipment, architectural coating, and consumer products.

Operational emissions generated by the proposed Project were calculated with CalEEMod and are detailed in Table F: Project Operational Emissions, below.

Table F: Project Operational Emissions
Emission Type Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)1
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Summer Emissions
Area Source Emissions 15.50 7.95 37.40 0.05 0.63 0.64
Energy Source Emissions 0.10 1.74 0.74 0.01 0.14 0.14
Mobile Source Emissions 15.00 15.50 150.00 0.38 33.6 9.47 Total Emissions2 30.60 25.20 188.00 0.44 34.30 9.47
Proposed Project Winter Emissions
Area Source Emissions 12.20 7.63 3.25 0.05 0.62 0.62
Energy Source Emissions 0.10 1.74 0.74 0.01 0.14 0.14
Mobile Source Emissions 14.00 16.60 124.00 0.36 33.60 8.70 Total Emissions2 26.30 26.00 128.00 0.42 34.30 9.45
Peak Emissions 30.36 26.00 188.00 0.44 34.30 9.47
SCAQMD Threshold 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, June 2023). 1 Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. 2 The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
As shown in Table F, the proposed Project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 689 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
60 c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include the single‐family residences located approximately 33 feet (10 meters) to the east of the Project site boundary.

Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I‐4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 and revised 2008) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST screening lookup tables for projects that disturb/grade 1, 2, or 5 acres per day emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project over 5 acres in size should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from area source emissions. For LST analysis purposes, the SCAQMD is divided into 38 Source Receptor Areas(SRAs), each of which contain specific localized air quality emission thresholds for CO, NOX, PM2.5, and PM10 to determine local air quality impacts. The proposed Project would be located in SRA 35, East San Bernardino Valley.

The SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for 1‐, 2‐, and 5‐acre site disturbance areas per day; it is noted that the SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for projects disturbing over 5 acres per day. The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.15 Based on the equipment provided by the Project Applicant and default information provided by CalEEMod, the Project would actively disturb an average of approximately 2.5 acres per day. Therefore, the LST thresholds for 2 acres were conservatively utilized for the construction LST analysis. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 10 meters from the Project site’s boundary, the LST values for 25 meters were used.

Table G: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction‐related emissions. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table G are less than those in Table E because localized emissions include only on‐site emissions(i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive dust), and do not include off‐site emissions (i.e., from worker, vendor, and hauling trips). As seen in Table G, emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 35. Construction LST impacts would be less than significant.
15   The number of acres represents the total acres traversed by grading equipment. In order to properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8‐hour workday.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 690 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
61 Table G: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (in Pounds Per Day)1 Maximum Emissions NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2024)2 18.50 20.00 1.17 0.75
Year 2 (2025)3 16.80 19.90 0.71 0.65
Year 3 (2026)4 25.30 32.80 1.03 0.95
Maximum Daily Emissions5 25.30 32.80 1.03 0.95
Localized Significance Threshold6 118.0 775.0 4.0 4.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, June 2023). 1 Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1.  Winter emissions represent worst‐case.     2 Maximum on‐site daily emissions occur during grading phase for all pollutants in Year 1. 3 Maximum on‐site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 2 and Year 3. 4 Building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases are expected to occur simultaneously in Year 3, As such, maximum on‐ site emissions shown for Year 3 is the sum of all on‐site emissions occurring during building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases.   5 The maximum daily construction emissions include fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD Rule 403, which includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 6 The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (more than 2 acres per day), the distance to sensitive receptors (less than 25 meters), and the source receptor area (SRA 35, East San Bernardino Valley).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
In addition, according to SCAQMD localized significance threshold 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 extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed Project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long‐term localized significance threshold analysis is necessary. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant.

Long Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.).

The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of CO hotspots when a project increases the volume‐to‐ capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with an existing level ofservice (LOS) of D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections.

The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. Nationwide estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.16 CO emissions have continued to decline since this time. 16   United States Environmental Protection Agency¸ Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_ pdf.cfm?i=10 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 691 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
62 The Basin was re‐designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per‐vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, which is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations. The locationsselected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst‐case intersections in the Basin and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Plan is utilized in a comparison to the proposed Project, since it represents a worst‐case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within the Basin.

Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 parts per million [ppm]), which is well below the 35 ppm 1‐hour CO federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in Southern California, with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections within the City near the Project site due to the comparatively low volume of traffic that would occur as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the Project may generate detectable odors from heavy‐duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction‐related odors would be short term in nature and cease upon Project completion. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than 5 minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy‐duty equipment exhaust. The Project would also comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short term and are less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 692 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
63 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
Wildlife 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, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
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?
   
The information and analysis in this section have been prepared based on the Results of a Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village, City of Redlands, County of Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 693 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
64 San Bernardino, California, prepared by Michael Baker International in February 202317 (Appendix B‐1) and the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Focused Survey for the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village, City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California, prepared by Michael Baker International in July 202218 (Appendix B‐2).
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently undeveloped, generally flat, and rectangular in shape.

Conditions on the Project site generally consist of disturbed vegetation with areas that are subject to continual weed abatement and as a result contain compacted bare or sparsely vegetated ground. Where present, vegetation is dominated by native and non‐native ruderal species.

The Biological Resources Assessment included in Appendix B‐1 included a literature review and record search for special‐status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the Project site (within a 5‐mile radius) and a biological field survey/habitat assessment of the Project site and a 500‐ foot buffer (survey area) conducted on April 5, 2022, to evaluate the condition of any potential habitat present within the Projectsite. Previously recorded occurrences ofspecial‐status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the Projectsite were determined through a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). USFWS‐designated Critical Habitat for species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) was reviewed online via the Environmental Conservation Online System: Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. In addition, the Biological Resources Assessment included the review of previously prepared reports, survey results, and literature, as available, detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site to understand existing site conditions, confirm previous species observations, and note the extent of any disturbances, if present, that have occurred within the Project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special‐status biological resources. The only sensitive wildlife species determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur at the Project site is the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; a State Watch List [WL] species) as a foraging species, with a low potential to nest; burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) as a foraging and nesting species; southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; a State Species of Special Concern [SSC]); and the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; a State WL species). All other special‐status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB and IPaC either have a low potential or are not expected to occur within the Project site. Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat preferences, distributions, and elevation ranges, the Biological Resources Assessment determined that none of the special‐status plant species identified by the CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California 17   Michael BakerInternational. 2023. Results of a Biological Resources Assessment forthe Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village – City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California. 18   Michael Baker International. 2022. Results of a Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Focused Survey for The Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village – City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 694 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
65 (CIRP), and IPaC are expected to occur within the Project site. In addition, the Project site is not within USFWS‐designated Critical habitat for any federally listed species.

No special‐status plantspecies orspecial‐status vegetation communities were observed within the Project site during the field survey. One special‐status wildlife species, the Loggerhead shrike (Laniusludovicianus; a State SSC), was observed during the field survey. However, due to a lack of nesting habitat and this species’ status as a breeding bird along the southern California coastal slope, the bird that was observed was more likely a transient or lingering wintering bird that had not yet made it back to its breeding territory.

The Projectsite consists of existing disturbed areasthat have been subject to a high level of anthropogenic disturbances that have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on site. As such, the majority of the Project site consists of native and non‐native ruderal/weedy plant species. Plant species identified on the Project site include annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), red brome (Bromus rubens), and London rocket (Susymbrium irio). The Project site provides minimal foraging and cover habitat for wildlife species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Avian species observed during the field investigation include northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), white‐crowned sparrow (Zoniotrichia leucophrys), house finch (Haemorhour mexicanus), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). The only reptilian species observed during the field investigation was western side‐blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Mammalian species observed during the field investigation included the long‐tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beechei). No fish or amphibian species were observed during the field investigation as no hydrogeomorphic features were observed on the Project site that would provide suitable habitat.

Due to its regional significance in the vicinity of the Project site, focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on four separate days during the 2022 breeding season (February 1 through August 31). Areas that provided suitable habitat for the burrowing owl were surveyed for suitable, occupied, and remnant burrows consisting of natural and non‐natural substrates. Methods to detect the presence of burrowing owlsincluded direct observation, aural detection, and signs of presence (i.e., pellets, white wash, feathers, or prey remains, particularly around burrows). The Burrowing Owl Focused Survey included in Appendix B‐2 concluded that no burrowing owls, sign of burrowing owls (i.e., pellets, white wash, feathers, or prey remains), occupied burrows, or recemented burrows were observed during any of the four focused survey days. The survey results did note, however, that the Project site contains suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the burrowing owl and suitable burrows were observed during the surveys. In addition, the Project site is approximately 2 miles away from the closest known occurrence of burrowing owl. Due to the presence of suitable burrows and foraging habitat as well as the Project site’s proximity to existing occurrence records of the burrowing owl, the Burrowing Owl Focused Survey recommended pre‐ construction surveys for burrowing owls be conducted as described in Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 prior to any ground‐disturbing activities to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls that may be present on or around the Project site.

While no breeding or nesting birds or raptors were observed within the Project site and surrounding vicinity, vegetation on the Project site could provide nesting habitat for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. Construction of the proposed Project may occur during the bird breeding season (typically February 1 through August 31), which could result in ground‐disturbing construction activities directly affecting birds protected by the MBTA and their nests Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 695 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
66 through the removal of habitat on the Project site and indirectly through increased noise, vibration, and increased human activity. Mitigation Measure BIO‐2 requiresthat nesting bird pre‐construction clearance surveys be conducted prior to any ground‐disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 A pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground‐disturbing activities to avoid impacts to burrowing owls and/or occupied burrows.

The pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the methods outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). A second clearance survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the City of Redlands for review and file. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, Project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be required.

If an occupied burrow is found outside, but within 500 feet, of the development footprint, the qualified biologist shall establish a “no‐ disturbance” buffer around the burrow location(s). The size of the “no‐ disturbance” buffer shall be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and be based on the species status (i.e., breeding, non‐breeding) and proposed level of disturbance. If an occupied burrow is found within the development footprint and cannot be avoided, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiating Project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐2 Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season.

Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

If Project‐related activities are to be initiated during the nesting season (January 1 to August 31), a pre‐construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat within the Project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the Project impact area. If no active bird nests are detected during the clearance survey, Project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 696 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
67 required. If an active bird nest is found, the species shall be identified, and a “no‐disturbance” buffershall be established around the active nest.

The size of the “no‐disturbance” buffer shall be increased or decreased based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. The qualified biologistshall periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if Project‐related activities occurring outside the “no‐disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, Project activities within the “no‐disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new bird nests in the restricted area.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on special‐status species. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: No discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or the CDFW were observed within the Project site. In addition, no special‐status vegetation or other natural community were observed on the Project site during the biological field survey/habitat assessment. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and no mitigation is required. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 3.4(b) above, no discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, the RWQCB, or the CDFW were observed within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands, and no mitigation is required. 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 Discussion of Effects: Habitat fragmentation occurs when a single, contiguous habitat area is divided into two or more areas, or where an action isolates the two or more new areas from each other. Isolation of habitat occurs when wildlife cannot move freely from one portion of the habitat to another or to/from Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 697 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
68 one habitat type to another. Habitat fragmentation may occur when a portion of one of more habitats is converted into another habitat, as when scrub habitats are converted into annual grassland habitat because of frequent burning. Wildlife movement includes seasonal migration along corridors, as well as daily movements for foraging. Examples of migration corridors may include areas of unobstructed movement for deer, riparian corridors providing cover for migrating birds, routes between breeding waters and upland habitat for amphibians, and between roosting and feeding areas for birds.

The Project site is not located within any wildlife corridors. The Project site is surrounded by developed land (residential and commercial uses) to the east and south and undeveloped land to the north and west, with minimal opportunities for movement to the south and almost no movement opportunities to the east and west. The Santa Ana River Wash is located approximately 1.25 miles north of the Project site; however, this natural area is separated from the Project site by existing roads and developments. Based on the surrounding area, any wildlife movement across the Project site is most likely to be local movements rather than regional. However, the surrounding residential land uses and existing roadways have fragmented the connection between the Projectsite and other undeveloped areasin the vicinity and region. The existing landscape of the Project site and absence of native vegetation would also limit the movement of wildlife through the Project site. In addition, wildlife movement across the Project site is further reduced by the presence of surrounding high‐traffic roadways (e.g., West Lugonia Avenue, West San Bernardino Avenue, and SR‐210) and existing residential and commercial development. Elevated noise levels, vehicle traffic, lighting, and human presence associated with the surrounding residential and commercial developments and roadways would also decrease the suitability of the Project site to be used as a wildlife movement corridor.

Although no riparian or other natural vegetation communities occur on the Project site, existing vegetation on the Project site may provide nesting habitat for migratory birds. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐2 for the protection of birds pursuant to the MBTA, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, native or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The City of Redlands General Plan outlines policies that protect biological resources.

These policies pertain to important ecological areas in the City of Redlands, such as San Timoteo Canyon, Live Oak Canyon, the Crafton Hills, the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, and other riparian areas within the City of Redlands. The Project site is not in the vicinity of any of the important ecological areas identified in the City of Redlands General Plan, and no riparian areas were observed on the Project site.

Street trees and other trees in the public domain within the City of Redlands are managed pursuant to Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 12.52 (Trees and Tree Protection along Streets and in Public Places).19 However, the City of Redlands does not have any local policies or ordinances pertaining to trees on private property.
19   City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 12.52. Trees and Tree Protection along Streets and in Public Places.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 698 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
69 The Project would not conflict with any policies protecting biological resources in the City and would not require the removal of any street trees. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
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
Discussion of Effects: The City has adopted the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan, which permits and mitigates construction and maintenance activities within the Santa Ana River Wash, approximately 1.1 miles north of the Projectsite, including water conservation, wells and water infrastructure, aggregate mining, transportation, flood control, agriculture, trails, and habitat enhancement. The Project site is located outside the boundaries of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, no impact or conflict would occur in regard to conservation plans, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 699 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
70 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
   
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
   
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?    
The information and analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by LSA in February 2023 (Appendix C).
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: Pursuant to §15064.5, the term “historical resource” shall include:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [California Register] (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building,structure,site, area, place,record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:

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

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 700 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
71 B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

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

D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A “substantial adverse change” to a historical resource, according to Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.”
A project‐specific cultural resources assessment was conducted for the Project site and included an archaeological and historical record search by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, a Sacred Lands File search, an intensive pedestrian survey of the project parcel, and additional research from a qualified LSA archaeologist including review of historic period aerial photographs, maps, and the Built Environment Resource Directory (Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment). The record search by SCCIC included a review of all recorded historic‐era and prehistoric archaeological sites within the Project site and a 1‐mile search radius, as well as a review of known cultural resource surveys and excavation reports.

The results of the record search identified 12 previous cultural resource studies within 0.5 mile of the Project site, none of which included the Project site. Additionally, 15 previously identified cultural resources were recorded within 0.5 mile of the Project site, including historic period foundations and refuse scatters, water conveyance features, orchards, landscaping, and four built environment properties which have been evaluated as eligible for local listing as historical properties. Review of historic period aerial photographs and maps indicates that there were buildings within the vicinity of the Project site (apparently a residence and ancillary buildings) from the 1890s until they were removed sometime before 1959, and the parcels were under cultivation with a citrus orchard from at least the late 1930s until at least the late 1960s.

The Sacred Lands File (SLF) record search was performed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). On November 7, 2022, the NAHC responded indicating the record search was positive, and a list of Native American contactsin San Bernardino County to be contacted for consultation was provided. The records and results of Tribal Consultation are discussed in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

The intensive pedestrian survey of the Project site identified a historic period water conveyance system and feature on the Project site, LSA‐CRX2202‐S‐1. This resource comprises a somewhat unusual water conveyance (irrigation) system (three predominantly rock‐and‐mortar flumes) along with a brick‐and‐ mortar cistern. Rock‐and‐mortar flumes are generally associated with late 19th to early 20th century agriculture, and the combination of materials and technology in these (cobbles and mortar, cement‐ surfaced brick‐and‐mortar, pre‐cast concrete/concrete pipe)suggests an 1890sto 1910sirrigation system that was repaired/maintained well into the 20th century. The system has been severely damaged, disrupted, and obscured (buried). This sustained catastrophic loss of integrity in terms of both physical aspect and setting makes this resource ineligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or local designation under the City's Historic and Scenic Preservation Ordinance. As such, collectively the features do not constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource” as defined by CEQA. There are no prehistoric resources documented within 1 mile of the Project Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 701 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
72 site. However, the apparent age of the resource and the former presence of a related residence and ancillary buildings suggest some potential for undocumented subsurface historic period cultural resources.

Although there are no prehistoric resources document within 1 mile of the Project site, due to the former presence of 19th century buildings within the Project site, there is some potential for the proposed Project to unearth previously undocumented cultural resources during construction. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 and CUL‐2, which require the retention of a qualified archaeologist on an on‐call basis to assess the significance of any find and determine the appropriate treatment in the event that unanticipated cultural material is unearthed on the Project site, are prescribed.

Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, with evidence that it has retained the services of a qualified archaeologist that meetsthe Secretary of the Interiorstandards on an on‐ call basis. Archaeological monitoring shall occur during all excavation activities down to a depth of 3 feet within 100 feet of the former residence location. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 100‐foot buffer) shall cease and the project archaeologist shall assess the find and determine appropriate treatment. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

Mitigation Measure CUL‐2 If significant pre‐contact and/or historic‐era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the qualified archaeologistshall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan for the remainder of the Project site. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be developed in coordination with the Applicant and the City. The Applicant shall secure a monitoring agreement with the archaeologist prior to the recommencement of work, and the archaeologist shall monitor during the remainder of the ground disturbance activities on the Projectsite and implement the Plan accordingly.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 and CUL‐2 would reduce impacts to known, unknown, or potential cultural resources that may be located within the Project site to less than significant levels. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: Please refer to Response 3.5(a). Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 and CUL‐2 would reduce impacts to known, unknown, or potential archaeological resources that may be located within the Project site to less than significant levels.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 702 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
73 c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: No known human remains are present on the Project site, and there are no facts or evidence to support the idea that Native Americans or people of European descent are buried on the Project site; however, buried and undiscovered archaeological resources, including human remains, may be present below the ground surface in portions of the Project site. Disturbing human remains could violate the State Health and Safety Code, as well as destroy the resource. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during Project grading, the construction contractor would be required to notify the proper authorities and adhere to standard procedures that would ensure the respectful handling of human remains during the earthmoving activities.

Construction contractors are required to adhere to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097, and Section 7050.5 of the State’s Health and Safety Code. To ensure proper treatment of burials in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, the law requires that all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find halt immediately, the area of the find be protected, and the contractor immediately notify the County Coroner of the find. The construction contractor, the Applicant, and the County Coroner are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. Compliance with these provisions (specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL‐1) would ensure that any potential impacts to unknown buried human remains would be less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required by State law.

Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL‐1 In the event that human remains or funerary objects are encountered on the Project site during any construction activities associated with the Project, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may
inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the Applicant shall consult with the MLD as Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 703 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
74 identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for
treatment and disposition of the remains. Prior to the
issuance of grading permits, the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, shall verify that all grading plans specify the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, as stated above.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 704 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
75 3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 and analysis provided in thissection is based on the Michael BakerInternational Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum dated June 22, 2023 (refer to Appendix A‐1 of this IS/MND).
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
Discussion of Effect: This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips and off‐road equipment associated with Project construction and operations. The analysis of operational electricity is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) modeling results for the Project. The Project’s estimated electricity consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for the County, and consumption factors provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), who are the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and the Projectsite. The results of the CalEEMod and energy consumption modeling are included in Appendix A‐2.

The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the CARB Emissions Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) computer program which provides projectionsfor typical daily fuel (i.e., diesel and gasoline) usage in the County, and the Project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction equipment list timing/ phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.

The Project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table H: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. As shown in Table H, the Project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0184 percent increase over the County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0123 percent increase over the County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. The Project’s off‐road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, on‐road construction fuel consumption, and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase San Bernardino County’s consumption by 0.4543 percent, 0.0177 percent, and 0.0927 percent, respectively.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 705 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
76 Table H: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption1
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase
Countywide2
Electricity Consumption   2,970 MWh 16,180,811 MWh 0.0184% Natural Gas Consumption 68,976 therms 561,360,617 therms 0.0123% Fuel Consumption
Construction Off‐Road Fuel Consumption3 111,562 gallons   24,554,746 gallons   0.4543% Construction On‐Road Fuel Consumption3 202,819 gallons 1,147,766,168 gallons 0.0177% Operational Automotive Fuel
Consumption3 1,033,060 gallons 1,113,988,859 gallons 0.0927% Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, June 2023).

Notes:

1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2022.1.

2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in San Bernardino County in 2021. The project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide off‐road fuel consumption in 2024 (start of construction), on‐road fuel consumption in 2024 (start of construction), and on‐road fuel consumption in 2026 (operational year). Countywide fuel consumption is projected from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 model. San Bernardino County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed October 27, 2023.   San Bernardino County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed October 27, 2023.

3. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is projected from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 model.

MWh = Megawatt‐hours
Construction Energy Use. Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy‐consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy‐duty diesel equipment not in use for more than 5 minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest USEPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

The Project‐related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and glass) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table H, the Project’s off‐road fuel consumption and on‐road fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 111,562 gallons and 202,819 gallons, respectively. The Project’s off‐road fuel consumption and on‐road fuel consumption from construction would increase off‐road construction equipment diesel fuel use and on‐road vehicle fuel consumption in the County by approximately 0.4543 percent and 0.0177 percent, respectively. As such, construction would not have a significant effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 706 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
77 project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than othersimilar development projects of this nature. As such, the impact would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Use. Table H provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. Based on the Traffic Study, the proposed Project would result in approximately 3,728 average daily trips, with 228 A.M. peak hour trips and 288 P.M. peak hour trips. As indicated in Table H, Project operational daily trips are estimated to consume approximately 1,033,060 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase the County’s automotive fuel consumption by 0.0927 percent. The Project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long‐term operational fuel consumption.

The key drivers of transportation‐related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed Project. However, the Project would provide electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking in compliance with the CALGreen Code, and the closest bus stop is located approximately 400 feet west of the Project site along West Lugonia Avenue. Inclusion of electrical vehicle charging stations would encourage and support the use of electric vehicles, and the availability of other alternative transportation methods would reduce the petroleum fuel consumption associated with operation of the Project. Therefore, fuel consumption associated with Project‐related vehicle trips would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. The impact would be less than significant.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) developed 2020 to 2035 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections.20 CEC forecasts that the statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2021 and 2030 would be 1.3 percent to 2.3 percentfor electricity and lessthan a 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent increase for natural gas.21 As shown in Table H, operational energy consumption of the Project would represent a less than 0.02 percent increase in electricity and natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC’sforecasts and the current Countywide usage.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies. Additionally, the Project would consume energy during the same time periods as other residential projects. As a result, the Project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the most current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standardssignificantly reduces energy usage. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every 3 years and become more stringent between each update.

The Project would also incorporate sustainable building design features in accordance with Title 24 and 20   California Energy Commission. 2022. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast, February. Annual average growth rates of electricity demand and natural gas per capita demand are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 14, respectively. 21   Ibid.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 707 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
78 CALGreen Code standards, such as reserving area on the roof for future solar panels and installing energy efficient appliances. The 2022 Title 24 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric‐ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, and more.

Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS).

The RPS requires investor‐owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance ofsuch energy resourcesfurther ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.

Therefore, the Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during Project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation.

The impact 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
Discussion of Effect: The City does not have an adopted renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. State and regional plansfor renewable energy and energy efficiency include the California Energy Commission’s IEPR, California Public Utilities Commission’s Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (CPUC Strategic Plan), Title 24 standards, and CALGreen standards. The Project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CALGreen standards and incorporates all applicable energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency measures typical for residential projects include installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and water efficient fixtures, conservation of roof areas for future installation of solar panels, as well as provision of electric vehicles charging infrastructure, among others. Compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen standards would also be consistent with the CPUC Strategic Plan strategies and the IEPR building energy efficiency recommendations, which would ensure the Project’s conformance with the State’s energy reduction goals. It should be noted that the Project is consistent with the City of Redlands Climate Action Plan, which includes City‐specific policies related to energy; refer to Section 3.8.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table L. As such, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 708 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
79 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 on‐or 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 wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
   
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
   
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 709 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
80 a. Expose people orstructuresto potentialsubstantial 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.

No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Projectsite is within a seismically active region; however, it is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard as defined by the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972.22 In addition according to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report)
23, the nearest active fault with known surface rupture is the Live Oak Canyon Fault (part of the Crafton Hills Fault Zone) located approximately 3.25 miles southwest of the Project site, and the San Andreas Fault is located approximately 4.25 miles northeast of the Project site. As such, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report determined that the potential for ground rupture at the site is low. In the absence of any on‐site active faults, no impact related to fault rupture would occur on the Project site, and no mitigation is required.
ii. Strong seismic shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within a seismically active area, where earthquakes have the potential to produce very strong seismically related ground shaking during the anticipated operational life of the Project. As previously discussed, the nearest known active fault isthe Live Oak Canyon Fault located approximately 3.25 miles to the southwest of the Project site.24 The extent of ground shaking associated with an earthquake is dependent upon the size of the earthquake and the geologic material of the underlying area. All future construction and development within the Project site would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and the City’s building regulations in effect at the time when building permit applications are submitted.

Proper engineering design and construction in conformance with the CBC standards and Project‐specific geotechnical recommendations (Standard Condition GEO‐1) would ensure that seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Condition: No mitigation is required; however, the following Standard Condition is a regulatory requirement that would be implemented to ensure impacts related to seismic activity remain less than significant.
22   Moore Twining Associates, Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Northwest Corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street, Redlands, California, Project Number:

H02901.01. February 11.   23   Ibid.   24   Ibid.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 710 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
81 Standard Condition GEO‐1 Compliance with applicable California Building Code and Project‐specific geotechnical recommendations. Prior to the approval of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Redlands for review and approval that on‐site structures, features, and facilities have been designed and will be constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of the California Building Code in effect at the time of City review and the recommendations cited in the Project‐specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, Building and Safety Division, or designee.

Adherence to the measures identified in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report as well as the current CBC in effect at the time of City review and other requirements identified and required by the City would ensure ground shaking hazards remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when strong seismic ground shaking causes soils to collapse from a sudden loss of cohesion and undergo a transformation from a solid to a liquefied state. There are three basic factorsthat must exist concurrently in orderforliquefaction to occur:
 A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil mass distortions;  A relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil; and
 A relatively shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that would allow positive pore pressure generation.

According to the Project‐specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth drilled of 51.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Because groundwater is anticipated to be much deeper than 50 feet BSG and has historically not been encountered in the upper 50 feet bgs, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report determined that liquefaction is not a concern at the Project site. However, the analysis indicated that the granular soil layers encountered on the Project site would be subject to dry seismic settlement of between 3 and 6 inches and primarily occurred between the depths of approximately 12 and 42 feet bgs. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report noted that the estimated seismic settlements may be excessive for support of wood‐ frame structures on conventional shallow spread foundations; however, the proposed Project includes the construction of a rigid post‐tensioned slab which would provide foundation design that can tolerate the anticipated seismic settlements.

Secondary effects of seismic activity which may occur at the site include ground subsidence, ground lurching, and lateral spreading. The probability of occurrence of each type of seismically induced ground failure is dependent on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the fault, topography of the site, subsoil, and groundwater conditions at the site. According to the Project‐specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report the potential for ground lurching, lateral spreading, and similar seismic‐ Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 711 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
82 related ground failure is considered low with implementation of the Project‐specific geotechnical recommendations. Through incorporation of Standard Condition GEO‐1, impacts from seismically induced ground failure would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. iv. Landslides?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Projectsite is not located within an area susceptible to landslides.25 Due to the Project site’s flat topography, the absence of significant nearby slopes or hills in the area planned for development, and the planned site grading in accordance with Standard Condition GEO‐1, no impacts from landslides or slope instabilities at the Project site would occur. No mitigation is required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Construction at the Project site would disturb surface soils and make them susceptible to erosion from wind and water. In order to address the potential for erosion, the Project is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during the construction phase that would reduce erosion in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations.

These BMPs would be selected as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to address erosion and discharge impacts associated with the proposed on‐site grading.

The Project must also comply with the City’s grading permit requirements, which would ensure that construction practices include measures to protect exposed soils such as limiting work to dry seasons, covering stockpiled soils, and use of straw bales and silt fences to minimize off‐site sedimentation. In addition, the Project site would be covered with asphalt, concrete, and landscaping materials during operations; therefore, soil erosion would be none to minimal. Compliance with State and federal requirements, as well as with City grading permit requirements, would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required.
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 off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 3.7(a)(iv) above, the Project site is not located within an area susceptible to landslides. Due to the Project site’s flat topography, the absence of significant nearby slopes or hills, and the planned site grading in accordance with Standard Condition GEO‐1, no impacts from landslides or slope instabilities at the Project site would occur. No mitigation is required.

As discussed in Response 3.7(a)(iii), no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth drilled of

51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Because groundwater is anticipated to be much deeper than 25   City of Redlands. City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, SCH#: 2016081041, Chapter 3.6: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Figure 3.6‐3: Landslide Potential. July 21, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 712 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
83 50 feet bgs and has historically not been encountered in the upper 50 feet bgs, groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the Project’s proposed improvements. Based on the lack of shallow groundwater underlying the Project site, the potential for liquefaction to occur is considered low.

However, the analysis indicated that the granular soil layers encountered on the Project site would be subject to dry seismic settlement of between 3 and 6 inches and primarily occurred between the depths of approximately 12 and 42 feet bgs. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report noted that the estimated seismic settlements may be excessive for support of wood‐frame structures on conventional shallow spread foundations; however, the proposed Project includes the construction of a rigid post‐ tensioned slab which would provide foundation design that can tolerate the anticipated seismic settlements. With implementation of the Project‐specific geotechnical recommendations as detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report (Standard Condition GEO‐1), the potential for lateral spreading, settlement, subsidence, and similar seismic‐related ground failure at the Project site is considered low.

The earth underlying the Project site consists of silty sands extending to varying depths and generally overlying interbedded layers of poorly graded sands, poorly graded sands with silt, and additionally silty sand layers extending to the maximum depth explored (51.5 feet bgs). According to the Project‐specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, these nearsurface soils are granular in nature, have a very low expansion potential, and are not susceptible to soil liquefaction during an earthquake event. Through incorporation of Standard Condition GEO‐1, impacts from subsidence and/or collapse would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: As described above in Response 3.7(c), the nearsurface soils on the Projectsite have a very low expansion potential and are not anticipated to pose a hazard for the proposed Project.

Therefore, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 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
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project would be connected to existing wastewater collection and conveyance facilities owned and operated by the City. Therefore, septic tanks would not be necessary.

Because the proposed Project would not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Discussion of Effect: According to the City’s General Plan EIR, paleontological resources, including fossils, have been found in the Redlands area, and there is potential for paleontological finds to occur in remaining, unexcavated open space areas within and adjacent to the City of Redlands. Paleontological resources are the fossil remains or traces of past life forms, including both vertebrate and invertebrate Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 713 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
84 species, as well as plants. Vertebrate land mammal fossils have been discovered in parts of the City, including the fossils of a mammoth, ground sloth, camel, bison, horse, and deer. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. In the past, paleontological resources have been identified in the San Timoteo Canyon area.

The earth underlying the Project site consists of silty sands extending to varying depths and generally overlying interbedded layers of poorly graded sands, poorly graded sands with silt, and additionally silty sand layers extending to the maximum depth explored (51.5 feet bgs). Although the Project site is currently undeveloped, the site visit performed as part of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report indicated some remnant elements of past structures and improvements on the site including a rectangular shaped open concrete structure and various concrete drainage structures. In addition, the Project site was historically used for orchard/agricultural purposes. As such, the Project site was likely subject to periodic ground disturbance associated with agricultural use of the site and development of the various structures. In addition, the Project site is approximately 2.6 miles from San Timoteo Canyon, the nearest area of paleontological significance identified in the City’s General Plan EIR. Therefore, it is unlikely that unique paleontological resources are present on the Project site.

No unique geologic features are present on the Project site, and no unique geologic features would be destroyed, either directly or indirectly, as a result of the proposed Project’s actions.

General Plan Objective OSC‐7.1, Policy P3 requires the appropriate protection, evaluation, and recovery of any potential paleontological resource to a less than significant level. Although the Project site and surrounding area have likely been disturbed due to past agricultural use and no known paleontological resources are known to exist on site, because of the Citywide potential to encounter paleontological resources, unknown/undiscovered resources could be encountered during on‐site grading or construction activities. Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 has been identified to reduce any paleontological resource impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 Prior to commencement of any grading activity on the Project site, the Applicantshall retain a qualified paleontologist,subject to the review and approval of the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, Planning Division, or designee. The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre‐grade conference and shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and procedures for temporarily halting and redirecting work to permit sampling and identification and evaluation of fossils. If the resources are deemed to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Full‐time monitoring and salvage efforts will be necessary whenever previously undisturbed sediments are being disturbed (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). Once the earth moving is 50 percent completed, monitoring may be reduced if no fossils are being recovered. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be necessary to salvage any micro‐ vertebrate remains.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 714 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
85 In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor shall temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery shall be roped off with a 50‐foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. The paleontologistshall prepare a Paleontological ResourcesImpact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP).

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 715 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
86 3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
   
The discussion and analysis provided in thissection is based on the Michael BakerInternational Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum dated June 22, 2023 (refer to Appendix A‐1 of this IS/MND).
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Discussion of Effects: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the “determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,” and furtherstatesthat an “ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.”
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes significance thresholds for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would do either of the following:
 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Similarly, the SCAQMD, CARB, or any other State or regional agency have not yet adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the Project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG‐related impacts on the environment.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 716 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
87 Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the Project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good‐faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.  The proposed Project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct Project‐related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1, was used to calculate Project related GHG emissions. Table I: Estimated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the proposed Project. CalEEMod outputs are contained within Appendix A‐2.

Table I: Estimated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
Pollutant Emissions (MT per year)1
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e 2
Direct Emissions
Construction4
119.17 0.01 0.01 0.12 121.13
Area Sources   121.00 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 121.00
Mobile Sources 6,131.00 0.28 0.30 9.57 6,235.00
Total Direct Emissions3 6,371.17 0.30 0.32 10.34 6,477.78 Indirect Emissions
Energy Sources 932.0 0.08 0.01 0.00 836.00
Solid Waste 9.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 31.50
Water Demand 34.70 0.74 0.02 0.00 58.40
Total Indirect Emissions3 875.72 1.12 0.03 0.00 925.90
Total Project‐Related Emissions3 7,403.68
Emissions per Service Population per Year   5.1
City of Redlands CAP Year 2030 Service Population Threshold Per Year Capita Per Year   6.00 Exceed Threshold? No
Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, June 2023).

1. Emissions Calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1

2. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse‐gas‐equivalencies‐calculator, accessed October 27, 2023.

3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

4. Total project construction GHG emissions equate to 3,634.00 MTCO2e. However, construction emissions are amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years) and added to operational GHG emissions consistent with SCAQMD’s guidance.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT = metric tons
N2O = nitrous oxide
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 717 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
88 Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use 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 emissionsfrom on‐site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

As mentioned above, the SCAQMD and the City do not provide a separate GHG significance threshold for construction emissions; rather, applicable guidance specifies that construction emissions should be amortized over 30 years (a typical project’s lifetime), added to the Project’s operational emissions, and that total compared to the GHG significance threshold.

As shown in Table I, construction of the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 3,634.00 MTCO2e per year.   The amortized construction emissions would be approximately 121.13 MTCO2e per year (refer to the CalEEMod output in Appendix A‐2 for details)26. In accordance with SCAQMD’s guidance, Table Ishowsthe amortized construction emissions added to the Project operational emissions and the total emissions compared to the GHG significance threshold to evaluate the Project’s operational emissions impact, as discussed below.

Since there is no separate GHG significance threshold for construction emissions, Project‐level and cumulative GHG emissions during construction activities alone would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational GHG Emissions. Long‐term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile‐source GHG emissions would include Project‐generated vehicle and truck trips to and from the Project site. Area‐source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the Project site.

Waste source emissions generated by the proposed Project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing Project‐generated waste. Refrigerant source emissions are generated by the substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are shown in Table I above.

As shown in Table I, the total amount of Project‐related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 7,403.68 MTCO2e/year. Based on an average household size of 2.68 for the City of Redlands27, the Project’s 541 residential units would result in a direct population increase of approximately 1,450 persons. Assuch, the Project’s emission would be 5.1 MTCO2e perservice population 26   Since the time this analysis was prepared, the construction year has changed to 2025. As the analysis year increases, emission factors decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by less polluting equipment and emission regulations becoming more stringent. Therefore, the construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a more conservative analysis. 27 Ibid.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 718 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
89 per year, which is below the CAP’s Year 2030 6.0 MTCO2e per service population per year target. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The GHG plan consistency analysis provided below is based on the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP), SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS, and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan. The General Plan contains goals and principles to reduce GHG emissions in the City. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per‐capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans.

The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.

SCAG 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS. On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best‐performing projects, as well as different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. Table J: Consistency with the 2020‐ 2045 RTP/SCS shows the Project’s consistency with these five strategies found within the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS. As shown therein, the proposed Project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS.

Table J: Consistency with the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS1
Reduction Strategy   Applicable Land Use Tools   Project Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
 Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate
multimodal access to work, educational and
other destinations.
 Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to
reduce commute times and distances and
expand job opportunities near transit and
along center‐focused main streets.
 Plan for growth near transit investments and
support implementation of first/last mile
strategies.
 Promote the redevelopment of
underperforming retail developments and
other outmoded nonresidential uses.
 Prioritize infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land to accommodate new
growth, increase amenities and connectivity
in existing neighborhoods.
 Encourage design and transportation
options that reduce the reliance on and
number of solo car trips (this could include
mixed uses or locating and orienting close to
existing destinations).
 Identify ways to “right size” parking
requirements and promote alternative
Center Focused Placemaking,
Priority Growth Areas (PGAs), Job
Centers, High Quality Transit Areas
(HQTAs), Transit Priority Areas
(TPAs), Neighborhood Mobility Areas
(NMAs), Livable Corridors, Spheres
of Influence (SOIs), Green Region,
Urban Greening.

Consistent. The proposed Project
would involve a mixture of multi‐
family, townhomes, and single‐family
residential development on
undeveloped land. The Project site is
located in an urbanized area and
within walking and biking distance of
existing residential and commercial
uses. As such, the proposed Project’s
future residents would enjoy greater
accessto work, educational, and other
destinations, reducing commute
times and distances, and thereby
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
associated with transportation.

Therefore, the Project would focus
growth near destinations and mobility
options. The Project would be
consistent with this strategy.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 719 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
90 Table J: Consistency with the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS1
Reduction Strategy   Applicable Land Use Tools   Project Consistency Analysis parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or
smart parking).

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
 Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing
and prevent displacement.
 Identify funding opportunities for new
workforce and affordable housing
development.
 Create incentives and reduce regulatory
barriers for building context sensitive
accessory dwelling units to increase housing
supply.
 Provide support to local jurisdictions to
streamline and lessen barriers to housing
development that supports reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.

PGA, Job Centers, HQTAs, NMAs,
TPAs, Livable Corridors, Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Consistent. As discussed above, the
Project would provide three types of
residential development at different
price points: multi‐family residences,
townhomes, and single‐family
residences. Assuch, the Project would
be consistent with this strategy.   In
addition, the Applicant is providing
affordable housing in accordance with
the City’s adopted Inclusionary
Housing Program.

Leverage Technology Innovations
 Promote low emission technologies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides
hailing, carsharing, bike sharing and scooters
by providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated lanes,
charging and parking/drop‐off space.
 Improve access to services through
technology—such as telework and
telemedicine as well as other incentives such
as a “mobility wallet,” an app‐based system
for storing transit and other multi‐modal
payments.
 Identify ways to incorporate “micro‐power
grids” in communities, for example solar
energy, hydrogen fuel cell powerstorage and
power generation.

HQTAs, TPAs, NMAs, Livable
Corridors.

Consistent. The Project would install
electric vehicle charging stations and
provide bike storage spaces in
accordance with the 2022 Title 24
standards and CALGreen Code.

Therefore, the proposed Project
would leverage technology
innovations to promote alternative
modes of transportation and help the
City, County, and State meet their
GHG reduction goals. The Project
would be consistent with this
strategy.

Support Implementation of Sustainable Policies
 Pursue funding opportunities to support
local sustainable development
implementation projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
 Support statewide legislation that reduces
barriers to new construction and that
incentivizes development near transit
corridors and stations.
 Support local jurisdictions in the
establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax increment or value
capture tools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and development projects,
including parks and open space.
 Work with local jurisdictions/communitiesto
identify opportunities and assess barriers to
implement sustainability strategies.

Center Focused Placemaking, PGAs,
Job Centers, HQTAs, TPAs, NMAs,
Livable Corridors, SOIs, Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Consistent. As previously discussed,
the proposed Project would install
electric vehicle charging stations and
provide bike storage spaces to
promote alternative modes of
transportation. Further, the Project
would comply with sustainable
development practicesincluded in the
2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen
Code, including installation of
vanpooling and carpooling parking
spaces, installation of high‐efficient
lighting, and implementation of
water‐efficiency irrigation and
drought‐tolerant landscaping. Thus,
the Project would be consistent with
this strategy.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 720 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
91 Table J: Consistency with the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS1
Reduction Strategy   Applicable Land Use Tools   Project Consistency Analysis  Enhance partnerships with other planning
organizations to promote resources and best
practices in the SCAG region.
 Continue to support long range planning
efforts by local jurisdictions.
 Provide educational opportunities to local
decisions makers and staff on new tools, best
practices and policies related to
implementing the Sustainable Communities
Strategy.

Promote a Green Region
 Support development of local climate
adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, as
well as project implementation that
improves community resiliency to climate
change and natural hazards.
 Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands
and carbon sequestration.
 Integrate local food production into the
regional landscape.
 Promote more resource efficient
development focused on conservation,
recycling, and reclamation.
 Preserve, enhance, and restore regional
wildlife connectivity.
 Reduce consumption of resource areas,
including agricultural land.
 Identify ways to improve access to public
park space.

Green Region, Urban Greening,
Greenbelts and Community
Separators.

Consistent. The proposed Project
consists of a residential development
in an urbanized area and would not
interfere with regional wildlife
connectivity or convert agricultural
land. The Project would be required to
comply with 2022 Title 24 standards
and CALGreen Code, which would
help reduce energy consumption and
reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the
Project would support resource‐
efficient development that reduces
energy consumption and GHG
emissions. The Project would be
consistent with this strategy.

Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, January 2023). 1 Southern California Association of Governments, 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.
2022 CARB Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each Assembly Bill (AB) 32 inventory sector. Provided in Table K: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 GHG Inventory Sectors, is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissionssource category to determine how the Project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 721 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
92 Table K: Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 GHG Inventory Sectors Actions and Strategies1 Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth/ Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below 2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045
Consistent. The proposed Project would involve a mixture of multi‐ family, townhomes, and single‐family residential development on undeveloped land. The Project site is in an urbanized area and within walking and biking distance of existing residential and commercial uses. As such, the proposed Project’s future residents would enjoy greater access to work, educational and other destinations, reducing VMT. As such, the Project would be consistent with this action.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030.

Consistent. The Project is anticipated to include natural gas heating and/or cooking on‐site. The City of Redlands has not adopted an ordinance or program limiting the use of natural gas for on‐site cooking and/or heating. However, if adopted, the Project would comply with the applicable goals or policies limiting the use of natural gas equipment in the future. Assuch, the Project would be consistent with this action.

Non‐combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025.   Consistent. The Project would be required to recycle and compost 75 percent of waste per AB 341. As such, the Project would be consistent with this action.

Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, June 2023). 1 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.

General Plan and Climate Action Plan. The City adopted both the General Plan and CAP on December 5, 2017. The CAP has been prepared concurrently with the updated General Plan, reflecting the City’s most current land use and transportation strategy, and GHG implications of various General Plan’s goals and principles. The CAP is designed to provide discrete actions to operationalize the General Plan policies that help with GHG reduction. As demonstrated in Table L: Consistency with General Plan and Climate Action Plan, the Project is consistent with the goal(s) related to GHG emissions reduction in the General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Additionally, the Project would not exceed the Year 2030 emissions target of 6.0 MTCO2e per capita per year described in Table I.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 722 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
93 Table L: Consistency with General Plan and Climate Action Plan Goal/principle Project Consistency
General Plan Sustainable Community Element1
Goal: Serve as an environmental steward; ensure that
residents enjoy clean air and water; make efficient use of energy, water, and land resources; and grow in a manner in which increased population does not negatively impact
resources.
 8‐P.8: Promote sustainability by reducing the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fostering green
development patterns‐  including buildings, sites, and
landscapes.
 8‐P.9: Undertake initiatives to enhance sustainability by reducing the community’s GHG emissions.

Consistent. The proposed Project would involve a mixture of multi‐family, townhomes, and single‐family residential
development on undeveloped land. The proposed Project
would comply with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards. The Project would promote alternative mode of transportation by providing electric vehicle charging spaces and bike storage spaces. As such, the Project would ensure that the increased population associated with the proposed Project would not negatively impact resources.

The Project would be consistent with this goal.

Climate Action Plan2
The climate action plan aims to reduce GHG emissions by reducing VMT through the following categories: bikeway system improvements, pedestrian improvements and increased
connectivity, traffic calming, parking facilities and policies, transportation improvement.

Consistent. The Project site is in an urbanized area and within walking and biking distance of existing residential and commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed Project site is within a half mile of a bus stop for OmniTrans Route 15. The Project would also comply with Title 24 and the CalGreen Code, which would be required to be electric vehicle ready.

As such, the Project would be consistent with the CAP’s GHG reduction measures.

Source: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker, June 2023).

1. City of Redlands, City of Redlands General Plan, Chapter 8, Sustainable Community, December 5, 2017.

2. City of Redlands, City of Redlands Climate Action Plan, adopted December 5, 2017.

Summary. In summary, the consistency analyses provided above demonstrate that the proposed Project complies with the plans, policies, regulations, and strategies outlined in the City’s General Plan (and CAP), SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS, and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 723 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
94 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires.
   
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 724 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
95 The following hazards and hazardous materials analysis was obtained from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix E‐1: Phase I ESA) prepared by Hillman Consulting on June 28, 2021, and the Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Appendix E‐2: Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation) prepared by Hillman Consulting on August 16, 2023.
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
Discussion of Effects: Construction of the Project has the potential to create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use, and disposal of construction‐related hazardous materials such as fuels, soils, solvents, and other materials. These materials are typical of materials delivered to construction sites. The United States Department of Transportation regulates the transport of hazardous materials and waste in connection with construction of the Project and would require carriers to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Occupation of the proposed residential uses is expected to utilize relatively small amounts of hazardous materials, such as chemicals associated with fuel for landscape maintenance equipment, solvents, cleaning products, pesticides/fertilizers, and other similar chemicals. These materials are substantially similar to household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide use throughout the City and in the vicinity of the Project site. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations would ensure the Project would have a less than significant impact to the public or environment from the routine transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required. 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
Discussion of Effects: A Phase I ESA (Appendix E‐1) was prepared for the Project site in accordance with the standards and procedures outlined in the American Society for Testing and Materials E 1527‐13, as applicable. The Phase I ESA included a review of official government databases concerning the locations of known hazardous materials releases for the purpose of identifying any listings suggesting a potential impact to the Property due to presence or migration of hazardoussubstances and/or petroleum products.

The report provided a search of standard environmental record sources for listings of the Project site, adjoining properties and sites within the surrounding area. In addition, the Project site and the surrounding area were evaluated via the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database, and the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list for the purposes of identifying recognized environmental conditions or historical recognized environmental conditions. “Recognized environmental condition” means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 725 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
96 governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions. “Historical Recognized environmental condition” means an environmental condition which in the past would have been considered a recognized environmental condition, but which may or may not be considered a recognized environmental condition currently. If a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred in connection with the property, with such remediation accepted by the responsible regulatory agency (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a case closed letter or equivalent), this condition shall be considered a historical recognized environmental condition.

Based on historic records, the Project site was utilized for agriculture between 1930 and 1985 and has remained vacant from 2002 to present day. The surrounding properties have been utilized for agriculture starting in 1938 and residential uses were introduced to the surrounding sites in 1959. After 1994, agricultural use of the surrounding sites ceased. Commercial uses were introduced in 2002, and the surrounding sites have been utilized for commercial and residential uses until present day. No evidence was identified indicating improper storage, disposal, or application of hazardous materials, and a review of available aerial photographs did not show improvements such as hangars, tanks, or large barns that would indicate significant storage, formulation, and handling of hazardous materials.

The Phase I ESA identified one recognized environmental condition (REC) in connection to the proposed Project. As the Project site was historically used as orchards identified from as early as 1930 until 1985, there is potential for concentrated pesticides in shallow soils. Therefore, historical agricultural use is considered to be a REC. Additionally, five properties associated with hazardous environmental conditions were identified within a one‐mile radius of the Project site, as detailed in Table M: Summary of Identified Hazardous Sites Near the Project Site. The potential for vapor encroachment was considered in assessing whether or not a REC exists in connection with the Project site when reviewing applicable databases concerning the locations of known hazardous materials releases. In review of these properties, the Phase I ESA considered whether these properties constitute a REC or vapor encroachment condition (VEC) in connection with the Project site.

Each of the sites listed in Table M have been granted environmental closure regarding potential contaminants of concern or appropriate cleanup activities and no REC of VEC is suspected in connection with the Project site. Because the historical agricultural use at the Project site is considered to be a REC, the Phase I ESA recommended a Limited Phase II ESA be performed for the Project site to determine potential for soil contamination due to historical pesticide application.

A Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Appendix E‐2) was prepared for the Project site by Hillman Consulting on August 16, 2023. On July 31, 2023, Hillman collected thirty‐six (36) shallow soil samples from multiple soil borings on the Projectsite. The samples were submitted to A&R Laboratories of Ontario California forlaboratory analysis. The results of the analysisindicated detectable concentrations ofseveral pollutants including 4,4’‐DDD, 4,4’‐DDT, and 4,4’‐ DDE, alpha‐Chlordane, and Dieldrin. However, none of the concentrations exceeded their respective conservative screening levels for residential or commercial applications. The analysis also indicated samples had low levels of heavy metals including the following:
barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, lead, and zinc. The detected concentrations were compared to the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), and none of the heavy metal concentrations exceeded their respective conservative screening levels for residential or commercial applications or the DTSC‐established background concentrations. As such, the REC associated with the Project site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment with implementation of the proposed Project.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 726 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
97 Table M: Summary of Identified Hazardous Sites Near the Project Site Property Environmental Condition Location Relative
to the Project Site REC1/VEC2 Discussion
The Home Depot Store
#1013/1151 West Lugonia
Avenue
The CERS database lists this site as a permitted
industrial facility for stormwater discharges
and a chemical storage facility. Multiple
violations were listed and have since achieved
compliance.
415 feet southwest
of the Project site.

Based on the details
provided, the Phase I
ESA determined that
neither a REC nor VEC
are suspected in
connection with the
Project site.
7‐Eleven Inc. #33292/1161
West Lugonia Avenue/1390
East Arrow Highway
This site is an active gas station listed as a
hazardous waste generator with several
administrative violations that have since
achieved compliance. The violations were
related to failure to submit and maintain
compete and current Certification of Financial
Responsibility or other mechanism for
financial assurance.
443 feet southwest
of the Project site.

Based on the details
provided, the Phase I
ESA determined that
neither a REC nor VEC
are suspected in
connection with the
Project site.

Teledyne Battery Products/
840 West Brockton Avenue
This site appears on the EnviroStor database
with a “No Further Action” determination
dated September 7, 2018.
1,296 feet
southeast off the
Project site.

Based on distance, the
Phase I ESA
determined that the
listing is not
considered to be a REC
nor VEC in connection
with the Project site.

Texas Street Pumping
Plant/1401 Texas Street
This site is listed on the LUST database due to
diesel contamination of the soil. The leak was
first discovered September 1, 1991 and the
case received regulatory closure on July 16,
2004.
953 feet east of the
Project site.

Based on the media
impacted and the
regulatory closure
granted, the Phase I
ESA determined that
the listing is not
considered to be a REC
or VEC in connection
with the Project site.

Teledyne/840 West
Brockton Avenue
This site is listed with a regulatory closure on
August 19, 2005, and the CERS database
identifies the site as under a cleanup program.
1,296 feet
southeast of the
Project site.

Based on the details
provided, the Phase I
ESA determined that
neither a REC nor VEC
are suspected in
connection with the
Project site.

Source: Hillman Consulting. 2021. Phase I ESA. Pages 19 – 21.   1 REC = Recognized Environmental Condition 2 VEC = Vapor Encroachment Condition A review of the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List revealed one active federal superfund site, the Newmark Groundwater Contamination site. The site is an 8 square‐mile area of groundwater contamination in the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin in the City of San Bernardino. The site is defined by two contaminant plumes, the Newmark plume and the Muscoy plume. Remediation measures to inhibit migration of groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer and limit the flow of additional contamination (groundwater extraction and treatment at the leading edge of the plume) are ongoing and are functioning as intended under federal, State, and municipal actions. Given Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 727 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
98 that the Projectsite is located hydrogeologically up‐gradient of the Newmark plume, the remedial actions have been in effect since 1998 and continue to be monitored frequently by federal, State, and local officials, shallow groundwater is not present beneath the Project site, and the fact that the Project would receive potable water from the City’s water system rather than groundwater wells, the Project site’s proximity to the Newmark Groundwater Contamination site does not represent an environmental concern to the Project. Therefore, there are no Cortese listings that could potentially impact the Project site.

None of the properties/listings identified in the database review completed as part of the Phase I occurs on the Project site or has any activities or materials that would represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on‐site storage, leaking tanks, approaching groundwater contamination plume) on the Project site. Although the Project site currently contains an REC associated with historical pesticide use at the Project site, results from the Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation determined that no pesticide concentration that exceed applicable screening levels are present on the Project site. Further, the Project site is not subject to vapor migration from any on‐site or off‐site sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The nearestschool facility in proximity to the Projectsite is Citrus Valley High School located at 800 West Pioneer Avenue in Redlands, approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest. The City works with the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD) concerning the design of roads and other public improvements in and around school sites, and is responsible for fire, police, and public safety concerns involving all facilities within the City, including both public and private schools.

Although the Phase I ESA indicated the Project site currently contains an REC associated with historical pesticide use at the Project site, the Limited Phase II prepared for the site determined that all pesticide concentrations were below applicable screening levels. Further, the Project site is not within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Assuch, the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required. 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?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List has been compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Materials Data Management Program. The DTSC compiles information from subsets of the following databases to make up the Cortese List:

1. The DTSC list of contaminated or potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites listed in the California Sites database;
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 728 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
99 2. The California State Water Resources Control Board listing of leaking underground storage tanks; and

3. The CalRecycle list of sanitary landfills that have evidence of groundwater contamination or known migration of hazardous materials.

None of the historical RECs identified in Table M occurs on the Project site or includes any activities or materials that would represent a significant hazard to the public or environment at the Project site.

Therefore, no impact related to the Cortese List or other governmental databases would occur. No mitigation is required.
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located approximately 2.2 mile southeast of San Bernardino International Airport and approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Redlands Municipal Airport. The Project site is located outside the Airport Compatibility Zones of San Bernardino International Airport and Redlands Municipal Airport.28 No impacts related to the Project’s vicinity to a public airport would occur.

No mitigation is required.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project includes the design, construction, and maintenance of new residential units, roadways, and utilitiesin accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular access, resulting in the provision of adequate emergency access and evacuation. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would include the extension of Pennsylvania Avenue, which would either end in a in a cul‐de‐sac just west of the existing three‐legged intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street or would extend from Karon Street west to Tennessee Street, creating a complete connection between Tennessee Street and the existing Pennsylvania Avenue east of Karon Street. Such improvements are not expected to result in road closures; however, temporary lane closures may be required to complete construction activities. As a condition of Project approval, the Applicant would be required to provide lane closure requirements to the City and local emergency service responders in advance of such closures. The proposed Project would develop two access points onto the site from West Lugonia Avenue (a signalized intersection at New York Street/West Lugonia Avenue and a right‐in/right‐ out driveway on the southwest corner of the Project site), one access point from the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension, and one access point from Karon Street. The design of the proposed Project would be reviewed by the City’s Fire and Police Departments prior to the issuance of building permits. Adherence to the emergency access measures required by the City would ensure a less than 28   City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Revised Draft, SCH #2016081041. Figure 3.7‐2 (Airport Hazards). City of Redlands. July 21, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 729 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
100
significant impact related to implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation is required. g. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within a LRA Non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to CALFIRE mapping.29 The General Plan EIR, Figure 3.7‐3, indicates that the Project site is located in an area designated as a Moderate Fire Level Threat.30 No hillside areas or natural areas prone to wildfires are located in the immediate Project vicinity as this area of Redlands is urbanized with residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. Due to the nature of the Project vicinity, on‐site and adjacent areas have minimal capability to support a wildfire. The proposed Project would be required to implement and abide to Redlands General Plan policies (specifically Policies 7‐A.83 through 7‐A.106) that promote fire safety through agency cooperation and management of risk factors; adhere to applicable building and fire codes; and implement existing programs such as weed abatement and education under the Redlands Fire Department; all of which would reduce the wildfire risk at the Project site. In addition, the proposed Project will be designed in accordance with current California Fire Code Standards, which include requirements for internal road widths, access points to the Project site, and construction fire suppression techniques. Proper enforcement of these existing regulations will ensure that implementation of 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. Impacts would be less then significant, and no mitigation is required.

29   CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, City of Redlands Map. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 5949/redlands.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023). 30 City of Redlands, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, Chapter 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Figure 3.7‐3: Fire Hazards and Fire Safety Services.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 730 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
101

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
   
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
substantial 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 off site?
   
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
   
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?    
d. Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, or 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 following hydrology and water quality analysis was obtained from the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix F‐1: PWQMP) prepared by DRC Engineering, Inc on September 5, 2023, and the Conceptual Hydrology Study (Appendix F‐2: Conceptual Hydrology Study) prepared by DRC Engineering, Inc on June 26, 2023.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 731 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
102
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Pollutants of concern during construction include sediment, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products(e.g., paints,solvents, and fuels), and concrete‐related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction. Any of these pollutants have the potential to be transported via storm water runoff into receiving waters (i.e., Santa Ana River Reach 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 and Newport Slough).

Construction of the proposed Project would disturb approximately 11.68 acres. Because Project construction would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the Project would be subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit), which was adopted on September 8, 2022 and will become effective on September 1, 2023. The Project would also be required to comply with the City of Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 13.54. Chapter 13.54 prohibits land disturbance or construction activities without first obtaining coverage under the State Construction General Permit, development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that construction practices include measures to address pollutant discharge into storm drains. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 and as required by the Construction General Permit and City Municipal Code, the Construction Contractor would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, erosion and sediment control (designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site), and good housekeeping practices to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the proposed project on February 11, 2022, by Moore Twining Associates, Inc., no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth drilled of 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Excavation at the Project site during construction of the proposed Project is not anticipated to extend further than 10 feet bgs.  Given the depth to groundwater, it is unlikely that excavation activities would have the potential to encounter groundwater. Therefore, groundwater dewatering is not anticipated to be required during construction activities.

With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and construction BMPs, impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during project construction would be lessthan significant, and no mitigation is required.

During operation, anticipated pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include pathogens (bacterial/virus), nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen), noxious aquatic plans, sediment, oil Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 732 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
103
and grease, trash and debris, pesticides and herbicides, organic compounds, and oxygen demanding compounds. The current impairments for receiving waters (i.e., Santa Ana River Reach 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 and Newport Slough) include pathogens, copper, lead, and indicator bacteria. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has adopted a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation plan for pathogens, copper, lead, indicator bacteria, enterococcus, fecal coliform, and total coliform, which are applicable to the proposed Project.

The City of Redlands is a co‐permittee under Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County Within the Santa Ana Region Area‐Wide Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Program (Order No. R8‐2010‐0036, NPDES No. CAS618036) (San Bernardino County MS4 Permit).

The San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requires the preparation of project‐specific WQMPs for priority projects. The proposed Project is considered a priority project because it involves the development of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and because it includes more than 5,000 square feet of parking lots that would be exposed to stormwater runoff. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3 and as required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit, the Applicant would be required to prepare a Final WQMP. The Final WQMP would specify the Site Design, Source Control, Low Impact Development (LID), and Treatment Control BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. Site Design BMPs are storm water management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site features to reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading generated from a site. Source Control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into storm water. LID BMPs mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or imperviousstorm drains. Treatment Control BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in storm water runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters.

A Preliminary WQMP has been prepared for the Project that details the following operational BMPs that would be implemented to reduce impacts to water quality from operation of the Project:

1. Site Design BMPs include minimizing impervious surface areas; preserving existing on‐site drainage patterns; re‐vegetating disturbed areas; minimizing unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas; utilizing vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales; and staking off areasthat will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction.

2. Non‐Structural Source Control BMPs include education of property owners regarding potential impacts to downstream water quality; activity restrictions; landscape management BMPs consistent with the City of Redland’s water efficient landscape requirements (Chapter 15.54 of the City’s Municipal Code); BMP maintenance; compliance with City of Redlands stormwater ordinance (Chapter 13.54 of the City’s Municipal Code); spill contingency plan; litter and debris control program; employee training on stormwater BMPs; catch basin inspection and cleanout program; and vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 733 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
104

3. Structural Source Control BMPs include storm drain signage and stenciling; trash and waste storage areas that are designed and constructed to reduce pollution introduction, efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; and finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1‐2 inches below the top of the curb, sidewalk, or pavement.

4. LID BMPs include catch basins and curb inlets with filters and underground infiltration and detention systems.

With implementation of the proposed Project, the Projectsite would be divided into 4 drainage areas(DA) to manage stormwater runoff from the entire Project site. The 4 drainage areas are discussed below.

DA 1 would manage stormwater runoff from the portion of the Project site that includes the proposed apartments. Stormwater runoff from impervious areas (e.g., concrete, asphalt, and roofs) within DA 1 would be directed to proposed inlets with storm filters and discharged into one of the four proposed underground infiltration and detention chambers (underground chambers) via a storm drain pipe system.

Overflows from the underground chambers (stormwater runoff volume that exceeds the storage volume of the underground chamber) would be directed off‐site via a storm drain pipe and discharged along Lugonia Avenue through a sidewalk culvert.

DA 2 would manage stormwater runoff from the portion of the Project site that includes the proposed town homes. Stormwater runoff from impervious areas within DA 2 would be directed to proposed inlets with storm filters and discharged into one of the two proposed underground chambers via a storm drain pipe system. Overflows from the underground chambers would be directed off‐site via a storm drain pipe and discharged onto the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension through a proposed inlet.

DAs 3 and 4 would manage stormwater runoff from the portion of the Project site that includes the proposed single‐family homes. There is a high point within Karon Street, causing DA 3 to drain north towards Pennsylvania Avenue and DA 4 to drain south towards Lugonia Avenue. Stormwater runoff from impervious areas within DAs 3 and 4 would be directed to proposed inlets with storm filters and discharged into its respective proposed underground chamber via a storm drain pipe system. Overflows from the underground chamber that infiltrates and detains flows draining to the north within DA 3 would be discharged along Karon Street through a sidewalk culvert. Overflows from the underground chamber that infiltrates and detains flows draining to the south within DAs 3 and 4 would be discharged along Lugonia Avenue through a sidewalk culvert.

As part of the proposed Project, Pennsylvania Avenue would be extended from Karon Street to the westerly property line and 32 feet of right‐of‐way would be dedicated to the City. In addition, a 52‐foot and a 22‐foot right of ‐way width would be dedicated to the City at Lugonia Avenue. Ownership of the proposed sewer, water, and reclaimed water lines within the Pennsylvania Avenue extension would be transferred to the City. These areas are considered DA 5 and 6; however, they are not included in the Design Capture Volume calculations as they are considered off‐site improvements owned and managed by the City.

The underground chambers within DA 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be designed to store and infiltrate the entire Design Capture Volume (DCV) (69,360 cubic feet) for the Projectsite in accordance with the County of San Bernardino’s technical guidance for WQMPs. The DCV is the volume of stormwater runoff that must be captured and treated by stormwater BMPs.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 734 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
105
Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect groundwater quality. As discussed above, the Project includes site design, source control, and LID BMPs, including catch basins and curb inlets with storm filters to capture trash and debris to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater prior to entering the underground chambers and infiltrating into the soil. Furthermore, when storm water isinfiltrated,soil and plants absorb and filter pollutants and reduce the potential for pollutants of concern to reach groundwater. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3, a Final WQMP would be prepared in compliance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit prior to or during final design, which would ensure that the Project design would adequately target pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff before infiltrating into the soil.

With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3, which requires adherence to the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit, including preparation of a Final WQMP to address pollutants of concern in storm water runoff, Project impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Regulatory Compliance Measures. No mitigation is required; however, the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be implemented to ensure that impacts related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would remain less than significant.

Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐1 Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater
Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). Thisshall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs),
including a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and
Report Tracking System (SMARTS). The Applicant shall
provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the Director of the City of Redlands Department of
Municipal Utilities and Engineering, or designee, to
demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction
General Permit. Project construction shall not be initiated until a WDID is received from the SWRCB and is provided to the City, or designee. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for the
proposed Project in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall identify
construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be
implemented to ensure that the potential forsoil erosion and sedimentation is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff as a result of construction activities. Upon completion of construction and stabilization Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 735 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
106
of the site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS.

Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐2 Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit and develop a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan to the City for review and approval that incorporates Best Management Practices to protect water quality during construction activities pursuant to Section

13.54 of the City Municipal Code.

Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (Final
WQMP) to the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services review and approval in compliance with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB’s NPDES
Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County Within the Santa Ana Region Area‐Wide Urban
Stormwater Runoff Management Program  (Order No. R8‐
2010‐0036, NPDES No. CAS618036) (San Bernardino County
MS4 Permit). The Final WQMP shall specify the BMPs to be incorporated into the Project design to target pollutants of concern in storm water runoff from the Project site and the necessary operation and maintenance activity for each BMP.

The City shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the Final WQMP are incorporated into the final Project design. The proposed BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be
incorporated into the grading and development plans
submitted to the City for review and approval. Project
occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP.

Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws regulating surface and groundwater quality, as well as implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1, HYD‐2, and HYD‐3, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with water quality standards and/or waste discharge, and no mitigation is required.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that may impede substantial groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report (Appendix D) prepared for the proposed Project, no groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth drilled of

51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Excavation at the Project site during construction of the Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 736 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
107
proposed Project is not anticipated to extend further than 10 feet bgs.  Based on depth to groundwater, groundwater dewatering activities are not anticipated during project construction. Furthermore, according to the Project‐specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, soil compaction would be minimized during construction, which would promote natural infiltration during construction activities.

Therefore, construction impacts related to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Once developed, the Project site would be approximately 80 percent impervious for a total impervious surface area of approximately 820,350 square feet. Currently, the Project site is 100 percent pervious; therefore, development of the proposed Project would increase impervious surface on the Project site approximately 820,350 square feet, which would decrease on‐site infiltration. However, as described above in Response 3.10(a), the Project would include BMPs to collect and infiltrate stormwater at the Project site in accordance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would notsubstantially decrease the amount ofstormwater that infiltrates as compared to the existing conditions.

The Project site is located in Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. As discussed in Response 3.10(e) below, the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin isidentified by the Department of Water Resources as a low priority basin and, therefore, a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is not required for this basin.

While groundwater provides the City with approximately 70 percent of its water supply, the City has sufficient supplies to meet current and future development consistent with its General Plan through the year 2035. As discussed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, based on the Project’s anticipated water demand of 81.96 afy, the proposed Project would demand up to 0.4 percent of the City’s surplus water in 2035 during the third year of a worst‐case multiple dry year scenario.31 Because the City has sufficient water supplies to meet current and future development within the City, the proposed Project’s water demand would not deplete groundwater supplies.

Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management.

Impacts associated with groundwater supply and recharge are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
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
Discussion of Effect: In the existing condition, stormwater generally sheet flows from east to west across the Projectsite onto the adjacent undeveloped property. In the post‐project condition,stormwater would be intercepted by multiple proposed catch basin and curb inlet and conveyed to one of eight proposed 31   69.95 afy of project demand ÷ 23,118 afy water surplus in 2035 during the third year of a worst‐case multiple dry year scenario = 0.246 percent of the City’s surplus water.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 737 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
108
underground chambers where stormwater would infiltrate into the soil. Overflows from the underground chambers would be discharged to either Karon Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Lugonia Avenue.

Currently, the Project site consists of 100 percent pervious surfaces. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed above in Response 3.10(a) and as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on‐site and off‐site erosion or siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site by 80 percent. An increase in impervious surface area increases the rate and volume of runoff during a storm, which can more effectively transport sediments to receiving waters. However, the impervious surface areas on the Project site would not be prone to on‐site erosion or siltation because there would be no exposed soil. The remaining pervious surfaces on the Project site would be landscaped with vegetation that would stabilize the soil and promote infiltration, thereby minimizing on‐site erosion and siltation. Furthermore, the Project would be required to implement Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3, which requires the preparation of a Final WQMP, in compliance with the San Bernardino County MS4 permit, and the implementation of Site Design, Source Control, and LID BMPs that minimize stormwater runoff.

With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3, operational impacts related to on‐site or off‐site erosion or siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
iv Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8704H (August 28, 2008), the Project site is not within a 100‐year floodplain. The Project site is mapped within Zone X, which is characterized by FEMA as an area of minimal flood hazard.

As discussed above in Response 3.10(a), Project construction would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the City of Redlands Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2).

The SWPPP would specify construction BMPs to control and direct on‐site surface runoff to ensure that Project construction does not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or impede or redirect flood flows in manner that would result in on‐site or off‐site flooding. With implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs (Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2), construction impacts related to Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 738 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
109
a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or impeding or redirecting flood flows in a manner that would result in on‐site or off‐site flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As stated in Response 3.10(c)(i) above, development of the Project would result in total impervious surface area of approximately 820,350 square feet (80 percent of the site), which would increase stormwater runoff and could potentially result in flooding. However, as discussed above, the Project site is not mapped within a 100‐year floodplain and therefore would not impede or redirect flood flows.

Additionally, the proposed LID BMPs(underground chambers), which have been designed to be consistent with the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3), would capture and treat stormwater runoff consistent with the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit. Compliance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3) would ensure that operational activities would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. iii Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect: As discussed above in Response 3.10(a), Project construction would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the City of Redlands’s Municipal Code and would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2). The SWPPP would specify construction BMPsto control and direct on‐site surface runoff to ensure that storm water runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and does not discharge polluted runoff during construction activities. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2, construction impacts related to exceeding the capacity of the storm water drainage system or additional polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As previously discussed, the Projectsite is undeveloped and there is no existing stormwater infrastructure on‐site. Currently, stormwater runoff on the Project site sheet flows from east to west and discharges onto the adjacent undeveloped property. The proposed Project would increase the impervious surface area by 80 percent compared to existing conditions, which would increase stormwater runoff collected on the Project site and discharged off‐site into the existing storm drainage system and receiving waters.

However, as previously discussed, the proposed Project would capture and retain the required DCV and gradually release overflows to public streets so that stormwater runoff does not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater system pursuant to the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3). Additionally, as discussed in Response 3.10(a), the proposed Project would implement operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff in compliance with the County of San Bernardino MS4 permit (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3).

With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD‐3, operational impacts related to the creation or contribution ofstorm water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 739 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
110
d. Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect: As discussed in Response 3.10(c)(ii) above, the Project site is not within a 100‐year flood zone; therefore, there is no risk of pollutants from the Project site due to Project inundation.

The Project site is approximately 51 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, and the Santa Ana Mountains are between the Project site and the Pacific Ocean. Based on the distance from the Pacific Ocean and the presence of an intervening mountain range, the Project site would not be susceptible to inundation from a tsunami.

Seiches are oscillations in enclosed bodies of water that are caused by a number of factors, most often wind or seismic activity. The nearest major water feature is Lake Perris, which is located approximately 14 miles south of the Project site.32 Given the distance of large standing bodies of water from the Project site, there is no risk of a release of pollutants from the Project site due to seiche‐related flooding. Based on the fact that the Project site is not located within a 100‐year flood zone and is located a substantial distance from the Pacific Ocean and closest bodies of water, implementation of the Project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche risking release of pollutants due to Project site inundation. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
e. Conflict with or obstructimplementation of a water quality control plan orsustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect: The Project site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (i.e., Basin Plan) (January 1995, updated June 2019) that designates beneficial uses for allsurface and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The proposed Project would comply with the Construction General Permit and the existing San Bernardino County MS4 Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP, preparation of a Final WQMP, and implementation of construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Santa Ana RWQCB Basin Plan.

Impacts related to a conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted in September 2014. SGMA requires governments and water agencies located within high‐ and medium‐priority groundwater basins to halt overdraft of the basins. SGMA requiresthe formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies(GSAs), which are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) to manage the sustainability of the 32   It should be noted that the Seven Oaks Reservoir is approximately 7 miles northeast of the Project site. The Seven Oaks Reservoir is considered a dry reservoir that serves mainly for flood protection to Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The reservoir is also used to impound water for groundwater recharge. If the Seven Oaks Reservoir was filled with enough water to experience a seiche during an earthquake, floodwaters would follow the Santa Ana River Wash, north of the Project site.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 740 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
111
groundwater basins. The Projectsite islocated within the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. The Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin is identified by the Department of Water Resources as a very low priority basin; therefore, development of a GSP or an approved GSP alternative is not required.33 As discussed previously, due to the depth to groundwater, it is not expected that any storm water that may infiltrate during construction would affect groundwater quality because the groundwater table is deep, and pollutants would be filtered prior to reaching groundwater. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to implement operational BMPs to treat storm water before it could reach groundwater. Further, pollutants in storm water are generally removed by soil through absorption as water infiltrates. Therefore, in areas of deep groundwater, there is more absorption potential and, as a result, less potential for pollutants to reach groundwater. Due to the depth to groundwater, it is not expected that any storm water that may infiltrate during construction or operation would affect groundwater quality because there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater.

Although the proposed Project would increase impervious surface area by 80 percent, which would decrease on‐site infiltration, the proposed Project would collect and infiltrate the required DCV in accordance with the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially decrease on‐site infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

33 California Department of Water Resources. 2016. Groundwater Exchange. Website: https://groundwater exchange.org/basin/upper‐santa‐ana‐valley‐3/ (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 741 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
112

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
Discussion of Effects: The Projectsite islocated on the western end of an established neighborhood within the City of Redlands. The Project site is bordered by West Lugonia Avenue to the south, Karon Street and an existing residential community to the east, a dirt road and fallow agricultural land to the north, and fallow agricultural land to the west followed by Tennessee Street and SR‐210. The proposed Project includes the construction of 451 apartment units, 72 townhome units, and 18 single‐family homes for a total of 541 residential units on the Project site. In addition to the residential development, the proposed Project includes the construction of on‐site recreational facilities and the extension of Pennsylvania Avenue along the northern boundary of the Project site. The proposed Project uses are consistent with the surrounding land uses to the east, which are primarily residential, so the proposed Project would integrate uniformly with the established residential uses surrounding the Project site.

The proposed Project would be served by existing public streets (West Lugonia Avenue, Karon Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue) and other infrastructure. The construction of the apartment and townhome neighborhoods would result in a proposed density of 27.2 du/acre and the construction of the single‐ family residences would result in a proposed density of 5.33 du/ac. The City’s General Plan currently designates the portion of the Project site directly adjacent to Karon Street that would contain the single‐ family residences as Low Density Residential, which allows for densities up to 6.0 du/ac. The rest of the Project site is currently designated as Commercial, with a small area designated as Park/Golf Courses. As part of the proposed Project actions, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the designation from Commercial and Parks/Golf Courses to High Density Residential will be required to permit the proposed higher housing densities of the apartment complex and townhome neighborhoods. The High Density Residential land use designation allowsfor up to 29 dwelling units per acre. The Project’s proposed density is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation for the Project site and with the density of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. As such, the proposed Project can be seen as an extension of the existing residential neighborhood to the east. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, but rather extend an established community. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 742 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
113
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
Discussion of Effects: The Project site’s current zoning designation is East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/Special Development District (EV/SD). The purpose of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan is to plan for large undeveloped areas along I‐10 to facilitate future industrial, commercial and residential development in an orderly and aesthetic manner, provide a strong job base to support the local economy, and to ensure high‐quality development through design guidelines and standards. The intent of the Special Development District is to provide alternative, more flexible site planning process which encourages creative and imaginative planning of administrative, professional, commercial or industrial, or mixed‐use development within the framework of a single comprehensive plan. Single‐family dwelling units on parcels of 20 acres or more are permitted as interim uses under the current EV/SD zoning. The EV/SD zoning does not permit, conditionally permit, or permit as an accessory use, higher residential densities. A zoning change from EV/SD to R‐3 Multiple Family Residential will be required to permit the proposed densities of the apartment complex and townhome neighborhoods (27.2 units per gross acre), and a zoning change from EV/SD to R‐1 Single Family Residential along Karon Street will be required to permit the proposed densities of the single‐family detached residences (5.33 dwelling units per gross acre).

With approval of the zoning change to R‐3 and R‐1, the proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted by the City. As detailed throughout this Initial Study, all impacts to the environment resulting from the proposed Project are subject to applicable mitigation and local, State and/or federal regulations, which would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 743 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
114

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 locally
important 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.

Discussion of Effect: Minerals are any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances including, but not limited to, coal, peat and oil‐bearing rock, but excluding geothermalresources, natural gas and petroleum.

Rock, sand, gravel and earth are also considered minerals by the Department of Conservation when extracted by surface mining operations. According to the Redlands General Plan EIR 34, the Project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone‐2 (MRZ‐2) where geologic data indicate that significant plain cement concrete (PCC)‐grade aggregate resources are present. The Project site is also located in an aggregate resource sector designated by the State Mining and Geology Board (1987) as containing regionally significant PCC‐grade aggregate resources. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the majority of the City’s aggregate resources are concentrated along the Santa Ana River wash. In light of this, the City has adopted the Upper Santa Ana Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan, which accommodates the relocation and expansion of aggregate mining quarries, to help ensure long‐term availability of high quality aggregate reserves located within the Santa Ana River Wash Planning Area for local and regional use. The Project site is outside the boundaries of the Upper Santa Ana Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan and not within an area designated for aggregate mining by the City, and access to the aggregate resources along the Santa Ana River wash would not be affected by proposed Project actions.

Any construction activities, such as grading or soil excavation, would not be at a depth where unknown mineral resources may be inadvertently discovered. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of available mineral resources. Therefore, development of the proposed 34   City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Final, SCH #2016081041. Figure 3.11‐1 (Mineral Resources). City of Redlands. July 21, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 744 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
115
Project would have less than significant impacts related to the availability of mineral resources. No mitigation is required.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact
Discussion of Effect: Please refer to Response 3.11(a). No impact related to mineral resources would occur. No mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 745 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
116

3.13 NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in 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. Result in generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
   
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
   
The discussion and analysis provided here describes the potential short‐term construction noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project, as well as long‐term operational noise and vibration impacts.

Characteristics of Sound. Sound is increasing in the environment and can affect quality of life. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.

To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations (or cycles per second) of a wave, resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound and describes a noisy or quiet environment; it is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave.

Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments.

Measurement of Sound. Sound intensity is measured through the A‐weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A‐weighted noise level de‐emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de‐emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike units of measurement that use a linear scale (e.g., inches or pounds), decibels use a scale based on powers of

10. Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 746 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
117
For example, 10 decibels (dB) is 10 times more intense than 0 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 0 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 0 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represents 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 0 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound‐pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).

Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop‐off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time‐varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in California are Leq and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day‐night average noise level (Ldn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time‐varying noise over a 24‐hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

Other noise rating scales of importance, when assessing the annoyance factor, include the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time‐averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of Lmax for short‐term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise.

Another noise scale often used together with Lmax in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes is noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half of the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half of the time it is less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, Leq and L50 are approximately the same.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category, audible impacts, refersto increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally involve a change of 3 dB or greater because that level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible impacts, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 and 3 dB.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 747 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
118
This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category involves changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

Physiological Effects of Noise. Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions and thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short‐term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation isreplaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. Thisis called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will potentially result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less‐developed areas.

Table N: Definition of Acoustical Terms lists definitions of acoustical terms, and Table O: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources shows common sound levels and their noise sources.

Table N: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit of noise level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in 1 second (i.e., number of cycles per second).

A‐Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A‐weighting. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low‐ and very high‐frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A‐ weighted unless reported otherwise.)
L2, L8, L50, L90 The fast A‐weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level 2 percent, 8 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period.

Equivalent
Continuous Noise
Level, Leq
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A‐weighted sound energy as the time‐varying sound.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The 24‐hour A‐weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 dB to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dB to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise
Level, Ldn
The 24‐hour A‐weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A‐weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter during a designated time interval using fast‐time averaging.

Ambient Noise
Level
The all‐encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time; usually a composite of sound from many sources from many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control (Harris 1991).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 748 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
119
Table O: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources
Noise Source A‐Weighted Sound
Level in Decibels
Noise
Environments
Subjective
Evaluations
Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud —
Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud
Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud —
Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud —
Near‐Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference Level Average Office 60 Quiet ½ as loud
Suburban Street 55 Quiet —
Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet ¼ as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet —
Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint ⅛ as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint —
Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint —
Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing
— 0 Very Faint —
Source: Compiled by LSA (2004).

Fundamentals of Ground‐borne Vibration:

Vibration refers to ground‐borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground‐borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernible, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as the motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items sitting on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low‐frequency rumbling noise.

The rumbling noise is caused by the vibration of walls, floors, and ceilings that radiate sound waves.

Although the perceptibility threshold is approximately 65 vibration velocity decibels (VdB), human response to vibration is not usually substantial unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. A vibration level that causes annoyance is well below the damage risk threshold for typical buildings.

Typical sources of ground‐borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment), steel‐wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Although there are examples of ground‐borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet, problems with both ground‐borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet from the vibration source based on the Federal Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 749 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
120
Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual35 (FTA Manual).

When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground‐borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground‐borne vibration that may be perceptible and annoying.

Ground‐borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train‐induced ground‐borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes (e.g., blasting and pile driving) to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA 2018). Ground‐borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root‐mean‐square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). The RMS velocity is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. The vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as the following:

Lv = 20 log10 [V/Vref]
where “Lv” is the vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), “V” is the RMS velocity amplitude, and “Vref” is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10‐6 inches/second (in/sec) used in the United States.

Regulatory Settings
Federal Guidelines
Federal Transit Administration. Although Section 8.06.120 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction activities during the permitted hours during weekdays and Saturdays, project construction noise was assessed using criteria from the FTA Manual36. The FTA Manual’s Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria for residential uses is 80 dBA Leq. In addition, vibration standards included in the FTA Manual were used in this analysis because the City of Redlands does not have construction vibration damage criteria. Table P: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria provides the criteria for assessing the potential vibration building damage associated with construction activities.

Local Regulations
City of Redlands General Plan Noise Element37. The City of Redlandslists policiesto meet the City’s noise‐ related goals and has established a noise land use compatibility matrix shown in Table Q: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interpretation to assess the compatibility of proposed land uses along with interior and exterior noise standards for specific land uses shown in Table R: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. The following are the applicable City policies. 35   Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. September. Website: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research‐innovation/ 118131/transit‐noise‐and‐vibration‐impact‐assessment‐manual‐fta‐report‐no‐0123_0.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023). 36   Ibid. 37   City of Redlands. General Plan 2035, Chapter 7. Website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐ attachments/07_healthy_community_low.pdf?1667249222 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 750 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
121
Table P: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate LV (VdB)1
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98
Non‐engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = microinches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inch/inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root‐mean‐square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Table Q: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Interpretation Source: City of Redlands General Plan Noise Element, Table 7‐10. (December 2017).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 751 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
122
Table R: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Categories
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Energy Average
Interior1 Exterior2
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family   453   60
Mobile Home   ‐‐‐   604
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
Hotel, Motel, Transit Lodging   45   653
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant   50   ‐‐‐
Office Building, Research & Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building
50   ‐‐‐
Amphitheater, Concert Hall, Auditorium, Meeting Hall   45   ‐‐‐ Gymnasium (Multipurpose)   50   ‐‐‐
Sports Club   55   ‐‐‐
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities   60   ‐‐‐ Movie Theaters   45   ‐‐‐
Institutional
Hospitals, Schools classrooms   45   60
Open Space
Parks ‐‐‐  60
Source: City of Redlands General Plan Noise Element, Table 7‐11 (December 2017). 1 Indoor environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closest, corridors.   2 Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single family as measured at property line; multifamily private patio or balcony that is served by means of exist from inside; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; hotel and recreational area.   3 Noise level requirement with open window if they are used to meet natural ventilation requirements.   4 Exterior noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 CNEL.   5 Expect those areas affected by aircraft noise.

Policy 9.0e Use the criteria specified in Table 7‐10 (Table Q of this IS) to assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the projected noise environment, and apply the noise standards in Table 7‐11 (Table R of this IS), which prescribe interior and exterior noise standards in relation to specific land uses. Do not approve projects that would not comply with the standards in Table 7‐11 (Table R).

Policy 9.0v Consider the following impacts as possibly “significant”:
 An increase in exposure of four or more dB if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as clearly compatible for the affected land use, as established in Table 7‐10 (Table Q) and Table 7‐11 (Table R);
 Any increase of 6 dB or more, due to the potential for adverse community response.

Policy 9.0w Limit hours for all construction or demolition work where site‐related noise is audible beyond the site boundary.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 752 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
123
City of Redlands Municipal Code.38 Section 8.06.070 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the exterior noise standards for stationary noise sources and are shown below in Table S: Maximum Permissible Exterior Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use.

Table S: Maximum Permissible Exterior Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use Receiving Land Use Category Time Period
Noise Level (dBA)
Noise Standard L501 L252 L8
3 L24 Lmax5
Single‐family residential districts
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. 50 50 55 60 65 70
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
60 60 65 70 75 80
Multifamily residential districts; Public
space; institutional
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. 50 50 55 60 65 70
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
60 60 65 70 75 80
Commercial
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. 60 60 65 70 75 80
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
65 65 70 75 80 85
Industrial Any time 75  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐
Source: City of Redlands. Municipal Code, Section 8.06.070 (Exterior Noise Limits).

Note: Per the City of Redlands Municipal Code: If the measured ambient level exceeds the allowable noise exposure standard within any of the first 4 noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in 5 dBA increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the 5th noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under this category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. The ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If the alleged offending noise source cannot be shut down, the ambient noise shall be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source but at a sufficient distance that the noise from the source is at least 10 dBA below the ambient in order that only the ambient level be measured. If the difference between the ambient and the noise source is 5 to 10 dBA, then the level of the ambient itself can be reasonably determined by subtracting a one decibel correction to account for the contribution of the source. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits shall be reduced by 5 dBA. 1 The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. 2 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour. 3 The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour. 4 The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour. 5 The noise plus 20 dBA or the maximum measured ambient level for any period of time. dBA = A‐weighted decibels
Leq = Equivalent continuous sound level
Section 8.06.090(F) of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits the operation or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between weekday hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work by public service utilities, the city or another governmental entity. All mobile or stationary internal combustion engine powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with 38   City of Redlands. 2023. Municipal Code. January. Website: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/ latest/redlands_ca/0‐0‐0‐5191 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 753 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
124
exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order, or suitable to meet the standards set forth herein.

Section 8.06.090(G) of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits the operation or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right‐of‐way. The City’s Municipal Code defines the perception threshold to be a motion velocity of 0.01 inches per second over the range of 1 to 100 hertz (Hz).

Section 8.06.090(F) of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits the operation or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between weekday hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work by public service utilities, the city or another governmental entity. All mobile or stationary internal combustion engine powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order, or suitable to meet the standards set forth herein.

Section 8.06.090(G) of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits the operation or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right‐of‐way.

Section 8.06.100 of the City’s Municipal Code states that it is unlawful to operate any air conditioning or air handling equipment that exceeds sound levels shown in Table S.

Section 8.06.120(G) 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 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activities taking place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. All motorized equipment used in such activities shall be equipped with functioning mufflers.

Existing Settings
Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the Project site include vacant land to the north, single‐family residences to the east across Karon Street, vacant land and commercial usesto the south across Lugonia Avenue, and vacant land to the west.

Overview of the Existing Ambient Noise Environment
The existing noise sources in the vicinity of the Project site include traffic noise on traffic on SR‐210, Lugonia Avenue, and Karon Street. Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engines, the interaction between the tires and the road, and the vehicles’ exhaust systems. Other noise sources include commercial activities south of the Project site.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 754 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
125
Ambient Noise Levels
Long‐Term Noise Measurements
Three long‐term (24‐hour) noise level measurements were conducted from December 7 to December 8, 2022, using Larson Davis Spark dosimeters. Table T: Long‐Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results summarizes the results of the long‐term noise level measurements along with a description of the measurement locations and noise sources that occurred during the measurements. As shown in Table T, the daytime noise levels ranged from 53.7 to 64.5 dBA Leq and nighttime noise levels ranged from 50.0 to

65.9 dBA Leq. The daytime maximum instantaneous noise level ranged from 69.6 to 90.0 dBA and the nighttime instantaneous maximum noise level ranged from 67.9 to 90.5 dBA. Also, the calculated CNEL levels at LT‐1, LT‐2, and LT‐3 were 62.7, 66.8, and 67.3 dBA, respectively. The long‐term noise level measurement survey sheets along with the detailed hourly Leq, Lmax, and minimum measured sound level (Lmin) results are provided in Appendix G‐1. Figure 8: Noise Monitoring Locations shows the long‐term monitoring locations.

Table T: Long‐Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results
Monitor
No. Location
Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime Nighttime Noise Sources CNEL Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
LT‐1
Located on the southeast
corner of Karon Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue. On a
utility pole. Approximately 22 ft
from Pennsylvania Avenue
centerline.

53.7‐

62.8 69.6‐

86.4 50.0‐

61.7 67.9‐

84.9 62.7
Traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue and
Karon Street.

LT‐2
1402 Karon Street. In front of a
single‐family home on a utility
pole. Approximately 18 ft from
Karon Street centerline.

57.7‐

64.5 74.8‐

90.0 54.9‐

65.9 74.7‐

90.5 66.8
Traffic on Karon Street.

LT‐3
1141 Lugonia Avenue. At the
parking lot of the Jack in the Box
on a utility pole. Approximately
128 ft from Lugonia Avenue
centerline.

59.2‐

63.7 73.8‐

81.2 56.7‐

63.0 72.1‐

79.7 67.3
Traffic on Lugonia Avenue and noise
from vehicles exiting the Jack in the
Box drive through.

Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

Note: Long‐term (24‐hour) noise level measurements were conducted from December 7, 2022, to December 8, 2022.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A‐weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Existing Traffic Noise. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD‐77‐108)39 was used to evaluate traffic‐related noise conditions along roadway segments in the vicinity of the Projectsite. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry, to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resulting noise levels are weighted and summed over 24‐hour periods 39   Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD 77‐108.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 755 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
126
This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 756 of 967
SOURCE: Google Earth 2021
I:\CRX2202\G\Noise_Locs.ai (1/5/23)
FIGURE 8
0 100 200
FEET
The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village
Noise Monitoring LocaƟons
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
LT-1 Long-Term Noise Monitoring LocaƟon
W Lugonia Ave
New York St
Temessee St
W San Bernadino Ave
Texas St
LT-2
LT-1
LT-3
210
W Lugonia Ave
E Pennsylvania Ave
New York St
Temessee St
W San Bernadino Ave
Texas St
Karon St
E Pennsylvania Ave
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 757 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
128
This page intentionally left blank

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 758 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
129
to determine the CNEL values. The existing (2022) ADT volumes were obtained from the Traffic Study for the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project40. The standard vehicle mix for Southern California roadways was used for roadways in the vicinity of the Project site. Table U: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels shows the existing (2022) traffic noise levels on the nearby roadways. These noise levels represent the worst‐case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and the model printouts are provided in Appendix G‐2.

Table U: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA) 50
ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Tennessee Street between San Bernardino Avenue
and Pennsylvania Avenue (Future) 6,190 < 50 < 50 134 63.8 Tennessee Street between Pennsylvania Avenue
(Future) and Lugonia Avenue 6,190 < 50 < 50 134 63.8
Tennessee Street between Lugonia Avenue and I‐10
Westbound On/Off Ramps 14,590 < 50 100 315 67.5
Pennsylvania Avenue between Karon Street and
Texas Street 910 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.9
Pennsylvania Avenue east of Texas Street 2,620 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.5 Karon Street north of Pennsylvania Avenue 250 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.6 Karon Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and
Lugonia Avenue 1,065 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.9
Texas Street north of Pennsylvania Avenue 5,300 < 50 < 50 116 62.1 Texas Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and
Lugonia Avenue 6,175 < 50 < 50 135 62.8
Texas Street south of Lugonia Avenue 9,080 < 50 66 197 64.5 Lugonia Avenue between Tennessee Street and
Project Driveway 17,270 < 50 120 372 67.2
Lugonia Avenue between Project Driveway and New
York Street 17,860 < 50 124 385 67.4
Lugonia Avenue between New York Street and Texas
Street 15,520 < 50 108 335 66.8
Lugonia Avenue east of Texas Street 14,130 < 50 99 305 66.4 New York Street south of Lugonia Avenue 4,280 < 50 < 50 93 61.8 Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A‐weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
I‐10 – Interstate 10
40   Michael Baker International. 2023. Traffic Study for the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village. January 13.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 759 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
130
a. Result in the 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
Discussion of Effects:

Short‐Term (Construction) Noise. Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction on the Project site. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the Project site would incrementally increase noise levels on roadways leading to the site.

The pieces of construction equipment for construction activities would move on site, would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volume in the vicinity of the Project site. Although there would be a relatively high single‐event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 feet would generate up to a maximum of 84 dBA), the effect on longer‐term ambient noise levels would be small because the number of daily construction‐ related vehicle trips would be small compared to existing daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project would generate a maximum of 1,552 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips per day based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (Version 2022.1) results contained in Appendix A‐2. Roadways that would be used to access the Project site include Lugonia Avenue and Tennessee Street. As shown in Table U, Lugonia Avenue and Tennessee Street have estimated existing ADT volumes of 14,130 and 6,190, respectively, near the Project site. Based on the information above, construction‐related traffic noise would increase by up to 1.0 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, no short‐term construction‐related impacts associated with worker commutes and transport of construction equipment and material to the Project site would occur, and no noise reduction measures would be required.

The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated from construction activities.

Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. The Project anticipates site preparation and grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. These various sequential phases change the character of the noise generated on a project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table V: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels lists the Lmax recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment included in the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook41, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.
41   FHWA. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA HEP‐ 06‐015. DOT‐VNTSC‐FHWA‐06‐02. NTIS No. PB2006‐109012. August.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 760 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
131
Table V: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor1 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 ft2
Backhoe 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor (air) 40 80
Concrete Saw 20 90
Crane 16 85
Dozer 40 85
Dump Truck 40 84
Excavator 40 85
Flatbed Truck 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front‐End Loader 40 80
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 50 70
Grader 40 85
Impact Pile Driver 20 95
Jackhammer 20 85
Pickup Truck 40 55
Paver 50 85
Pavement Scarafier 20 85
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pump 50 77
Rock Drill 20 85
Roller 20 85
Scraper 40 85
Tractor 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1 (FHWA 2006).

Note: The noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 The usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power. 2 The maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification 721.560 from the CA/T program to be consistent with the City of Boston, Massachusetts, Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

CA/T = Central Artery/Tunnel
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
ft = foot/feet
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Table W: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levelsliststhe anticipated construction equipment for each construction phase based on the CalEEMod (version 2022.1) results in Appendix A‐2.

Also, Table W shows the combined Lmax and Leq noise level at a distance of 50 feet for each construction phase along with the number of each construction equipment, acoustical usage factor, and the noise level (Lmax and Leq) for each construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet based on the quantity. As shown in Table W, construction noise levels would reach up to 97.4 dBA Lmax (92.6 dBA Leq) at a distance of 50 feet.

The closest residential property line is located immediately east of the Project site and is approximately 460 feet from the center of the Project site. At a distance of 460 feet, noise levels would reduce by

19.3 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet from the source. During the noisiest construction phase, the closest residential property line would be exposed to a construction noise level of 78.1 dBA Lmax (97.4 dBA ‐19.3 dBA = 78.1 dBA) or 73.3 dB Leq (92.6 dBA – 19.3 dBA = 73.3 dBA).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 761 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
132
Table W: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levels Construction
Phase
Construction
Equipment Quantity
Reference
Noise Level
at 50 ft
(dBA Lmax)
Acoustical
Usage
Factor1 (%)
Noise Level
at 50 ft
(dBA)
Combined
Noise Level
at 50 ft
(dBA)
Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Grading
Concrete Saw 1 90 20 90.0 83.0

97.3 92.6
Crane 1 85 16 85.0 77.0
Tractor 2 84 40 87.0 83.0
Excavator 1 85 40 85.0 81.0
Grader 1 85 40 85.0 81.0
Dump Truck 1 84 40 84.0 80.0
Paver 2 85 50 88.0 85.0
Pavement Scarafier 1 85 20 85.0 78.0
Roller 2 85 20 88.0 81.0
Dozer 2 85 40 88.0 84.0
Scraper 1 85 40 85.0 81.0
Front‐End Loader 2 80 40 83.0 79.0
Building
Construction
Concrete Saw 1 90 20 90.0 83.0

94.8 89.0
Crane 1 85 16 85.0 77.0
Excavator 2 85 40 88.0 84.0
Grader 1 85 40 85.0 81.0
Forklift 1 85 20 85.0 78.0
Generator (variable
message sign) 1 70 50 70.0 67.0
Pavement Scarafier 1 85 20 85.0 78.0
Front‐End Loader 1 80 40 80.0 76.0
Paving
Grader 1 85 40 85.0 81.0

92.3 87.9
Paver 1 85 50 85.0 82.0
Roller 2 85 20 88.0 81.0
Generator (variable
message sign) 1 70 50 70.0 67.0
Paver 1 85 50 85.0 82.0
Front‐End Loader 1 80 40 80.0 76.0
Architectural Coating Compressor (air) 1 80 40 80.0 76.0 80.0 76.0 Source: Compiled by LSA (2023). 1
The acoustical usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
dBA = A‐weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Although the closest residence may be subject to temporary substantial ambient noise level increases, short‐term construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA Manual construction noise criteria of 80 dBA Leq for residential uses. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that construction noise impacts would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Standard Condition NOI‐1 would limit construction hours to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday provided all motorized equipment is equipped with functioning mufflers pursuant to Sections 8.06.090F (Noise Disturbances Prohibited) and 8.06.120 (Exemptions) of the City’s Municipal Code. If permission is obtained to construct outside of the permitted hours, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code noise standards shown in Table S is required.

The following standard condition is a regulatory requirement that would be implemented to ensure that project construction noise would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 762 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
133
Standard Condition NOI‐1 Compliance with Sections 8.06.090F (Noise Disturbances Prohibited) and Chapter 8.06.120 (Exemptions) of the City of Redland’s (City) Municipal Code. Construction activities, including operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in site preparation, construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, paving, and/or architectural coating shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, and are prohibited at any time on Sundays and holidays unless permission is given by the City and noise levels remain below the City’s noise level standards.

All mobile or stationary internal combustion engine‐powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order and shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

With implementation of Standard Condition NOI‐1, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Long‐Term (Operational) Traffic Noise
The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD‐77‐108)42 was used to evaluate traffic‐ related noise conditions along roadway segments in the vicinity of the Project site. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry, to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resulting noise levels are weighted and summed over 24‐hour periods to determine the CNEL values. The existing (2022) ADT volumes without and with the Project were obtained from the Traffic Study for the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project (Traffic Study)

43. The standard vehicle mix for Southern California roadways was used for roadways in the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Table X: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Scenario A and Table Y: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Scenario B. These noise levels represent the worst‐case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and the model printouts are provided in Appendix G‐2.

As also shown in Tables X and Y, the Project‐related traffic noise would increase by up to 0.5 dBA under both Scenarios A and B, as discussed in the Traffic Study. Scenario A assumes a cul‐de‐sac on Pennsylvania Avenue just west of the existing three‐legged intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street. For Scenario B, Pennsylvania Avenue would extend from Karon Street to Tennessee Street, which would complete the connection between Tennessee Street and the existing Pennsylvania Avenue east of Karon Street. Noise level increases less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from Project‐related traffic on off‐site sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 42   FHWA 1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD 77‐108. 43   Michael Baker International. 2023. Traffic Study for the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village, City of Redlands.

January 13.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 763 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
134
Table X: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Scenario A Roadway Segment
Without Project Conditions With Project Conditions
ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
from
Baseline
Conditions
(dBA)
Tennessee Street between San
Bernardino Avenue and
Pennsylvania Avenue (Future)
6,190 < 50 < 50 134 63.8 6,510 < 50 < 50 140 64.0 0.2
Tennessee Street between
Pennsylvania Avenue (Future) and
Lugonia Avenue
6,190 < 50 < 50 134 63.8 6,710 < 50 < 50 145 64.1 0.3
Tennessee Street between Lugonia
Avenue and I‐10 Westbound On/OffRamps
14,590 < 50 100 315 67.5 15,710 < 50 107 339 67.8 0.3
Pennsylvania Avenue betweenKaron Street and Texas Street 910 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.9 940 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.1 0.2Pennsylvania Avenue east of Texas Street 2,620 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.5 2,620 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.5 0.0 Karon Street north of Pennsylvania
Avenue 250 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.6 250 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.6 0.0 Karon Street between PennsylvaniaAvenue and Lugonia Avenue 1,065 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.9 1,155 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.2 0.3Texas Street north of PennsylvaniaAvenue 5,300 < 50 < 50 116 62.1 5,440 < 50 < 50 119 62.2 0.1Texas Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Lugonia Avenue 6,175 < 50 < 50 135 62.8 6,285 < 50 < 50 137 62.9 0.1 Texas Street south of Lugonia
Avenue 9,080 < 50 66 197 64.5 9,080 < 50 66 197 64.5 0.0 Lugonia Avenue between Tennessee
Street and Project Driveway 17,270 < 50 120 372 67.2 19,170 < 50 133 413 67.7 0.5 Lugonia Avenue between Project
Driveway and New York Street 17,860 < 50 124 385 67.4 19,480 < 50 135 419 67.8 0.4 Lugonia Avenue between New York
Street and Texas Street 15,520 < 50 108 335 66.8 16,020 < 50 112 345 66.9 0.1 Lugonia Avenue east of Texas Street 14,130 < 50 99 305 66.4 14,410 < 50 101 311 66.5 0.1New York Street south of Lugonia Avenue 4,280 < 50 < 50 93 61.8 4,410 < 50 < 50 96 61.9 0.1 Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).ADT = average daily trafficCNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA = A‐weighted decibel
ft = foot/feetI‐10 = Interstate 10
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 764 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
135
Table Y: Existing (2022) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Scenario B Roadway Segment
Without Project Conditions With Project Conditions
ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
from
Baseline
Conditions
(dBA)
Tennessee Street between San
Bernardino Avenue and Pennsylvania
Avenue (Future)
6,190 < 50 < 50 134 63.8 6,530 < 50 < 50 141 64.0 0.2
Tennessee Street between Pennsylvania
Avenue (Future) and Lugonia Avenue 6,190 < 50 < 50 134 63.8 7,000 < 50 < 50 151 64.3 0.5 Tennessee Street between LugoniaAvenue and I‐10 Westbound On/Off Ramps
14,590 < 50 100 315 67.5 15,720 < 50 107 339 67.8 0.3
Pennsylvania Avenue between Karon
Street and Texas Street 910 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.9 980 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.3 0.4 Pennsylvania Avenue east of Texas Street 2,620 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.5 2,620 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.5 0.0Karon Street north of Pennsylvania Avenue 250 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.6 250 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.6 0.0 Karon Street between Pennsylvania
Avenue and Lugonia Avenue 1,065 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.9 835 < 50 < 50 < 50 54.8 ‐1.11 Texas Street north of PennsylvaniaAvenue 5,300 < 50 < 50 116 62.1 5,440 < 50 < 50 119 62.2 0.1Texas Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Lugonia Avenue 6,175 < 50 < 50 135 62.8 6,325 < 50 < 50 138 62.9 0.1 Texas Streetsouth of Lugonia Avenue 9,080 < 50 66 197 64.5 9,080 < 50 66 197 64.5 0.0Lugonia Avenue between TennesseeStreet and Project Driveway 17,270 < 50 120 372 67.2 18,780 < 50 130 404 67.6 0.4Lugonia Avenue between Project Driveway and New York Street 17,860 < 50 124 385 67.4 19,090 < 50 132 411 67.7 0.3 Lugonia Avenue between New York Street
and Texas Street 15,520 < 50 108 335 66.8 15,630 < 50 109 337 66.8 0.0 Lugonia Avenue east of Texas Street 14,130 < 50 99 305 66.4 14,890 < 50 104 321 66.6 0.2New York Streetsouth of Lugonia Avenue 4,280 < 50 < 50 93 61.8 4,410 < 50 < 50 96 61.9 0.1Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).1 Scenario B would connect the newly constructed Pennsylvania Avenue resulting in different local vehicle distribution patterns.ADT = average daily trafficCNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA = A‐weighted decibel
ft = foot/feetI‐10 = Interstate 10
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 765 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
136
Long‐Term (Operational) Stationary Noise
The proposed Project includes on‐site ground floor heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units for the single‐family residences and rooftop HVAC units for the multifamily residences, which could potentially operate 24 hours per day. The specifications of typical HVAC equipment, including the reference noise level, are provided in Appendix G‐3. Each HVAC unit would generate a noise level of 44.4 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Based on the proposed Project’s site plan and surrounding land uses, it is estimated that off‐site single‐family residences to the east would be exposed to up to four HVAC units from on‐site single‐family residences and up to 16 HVAC units from on‐site multifamily residences, which would generate a noise level of 41.5 dBA Leq and 43.1 dBA Leq, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet. Also, it is estimated that off‐site commercial uses to the south would be exposed to up to 28 HVAC units, which would generate a noise level of 50.3 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet.

Table Z: HVAC Noise Levels shows the noise levels generated from HVAC units at the residential property line to the east and commercial property line to the south along with the distance from the HVAC equipment to the property line and distance attenuation. As shown in Table Z, noise levels generated from on‐site HVAC units would reach up to 45.4 dBA Leq at the closest residential property line to the east and 50.3 dBA Leq at the closest commercial property line to the south. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime 30‐minute (L50) noise standards of 60 dBA and 65 dBA for residential and commercial uses, respectively. In addition, these noise levels would not exceed the City’s nighttime 30‐minute (L50) noise standards of 50 dBA and 60 dBA for residential and commercial uses, respectively. Therefore, noise impacts from project operations would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Table Z: HVAC Noise Levels
Land Use Direction No. of
Units
Reference
Noise Level
at 50 ft
(dBA Leq)
Total
Reference
Noise Level
at 50 ft
(dBA Leq)
Distance
(ft)
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Noise
Level1 (dBA
Leq)
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Residence East
4 44.4 50.4 140 8.9 41.5 45.4 162 44.4 56.4 230 13.3 43.1 Commercial South 283 44.4 58.9 135 8.6 50.3 50.3
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023). 1
Noise levels generated from HVAC equipment would be lower when shielding factors are considered. Ground floor HVAC units for the proposed single‐family residences would be shielded by the proposed residential buildings and rooftop HVAC units for the proposed multifamily residences would be shielded by a 4 ft high parapet.    2 Total of 16 HVAC units for 16 multifamily residential dwelling units in Building 11. 3 Total of 28 HVAC units for 28 multifamily residential dwelling units in Building 3. dBA = A‐weighted decibel
ft = foot/feet
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Overall, the proposed Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site in excess of standards established by the City of Redlands through its General Plan and Municipal Code. Noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 766 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
137
b. Result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects:

Short‐Term Construction Vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS (VdB) and assesses the potential for building damage using vibration levelsin PPV (in/sec). Vibration levels calculated in RMS velocity are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, whereas vibration levels in PPV are best for characterizing damage potential.

Table AA: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment shows the reference vibration levels at a distance of 25 feet for each type of standard construction equipment from the FTA Manual44. Project construction is expected to require the use of large bulldozers and loaded trucks, which would generate ground‐borne vibration levels of up to 0.089 in/sec (PPV) and 0.076 in/sec (PPV), respectively, when measured at 25 feet.

Table AA: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment
Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer2 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks2 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. 2 The equipment shown in bold text is expected to be used on site. µin/sec = microinches per second
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = vibration velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root‐mean‐square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
The greatest vibration levels are anticipated to occur during the site preparation and grading phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off‐site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts normally occur within the buildings.
44   FTA. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 767 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
138
The formula for vibration transmission is provided below:

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
Table AB: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the Project site along with the distance from center of the Project site to the property line of the affected land use. As shown in Table AB, the residential and commercial property line to the east and south are approximately 460 feet and 710 feet from the center of the Projectsite and would experience vibration levels of up to 0.001 in/sec (RMS). These vibration levels would not result in community annoyance because they would not exceed the City’s vibration annoyance threshold of 0.01 in/sec (RMS). Other building structures that surround the Project site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away.

Table AB: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance
Land Use Direction Equipment/
Activity
Reference
Vibration Level
at 25 ft
Distance to
Structure (ft)1
Vibration Level
PPV (in/sec) RMS (in/sec)2
Residential East Large bulldozers 0.089 460 0.001
Loaded trucks 0.076 460 0.001
Commercial South Large bulldozers 0.089 710 0.000
Loaded trucks 0.076 710 0.000
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

Note: The City’s vibration perception threshold is 0.01 in/sec (RMS) at the property line of the Project site. 1 Distance from the center of the project to the property line of the Project site. 2 The RMS value is approximately 0.71 of the peak value (Caltrans 2020). ft = foot/feet
in/sec = inches per second
RMS = root mean square
Similarly, Table AC: Potential Construction Vibration Damage lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the project site at the project construction boundary to the nearest buildings in the project vicinity. As shown in Table AC, the closest residential and commercial buildings are approximately 70 feet to the east and 140 feet to the south, respectively, from the Project construction boundary and would experience vibration levels of up to 0.019 in/sec (PPV). This vibration level would not have the potential to result in building damage because the residential and commercial buildings would be constructed equivalent to non‐engineered timber and masonry and vibration levels would not exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.20 in/sec (PPV). Other building structures that surround the Projectsite would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away and would be constructed equivalent to non‐engineered timber and masonry.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 768 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
139
Table AC: Potential Construction Vibration Damage
Land Use Direction Equipment/
Activity
Reference
Vibration Level
at 25 ft
Distance to
Structure (ft)1
Vibration Level
PPV (in/sec) PPV (in/sec)
Residential East Large bulldozers 0.089 70 0.019
Loaded trucks 0.076 70 0.016
Commercial South Large bulldozers 0.089 140 0.007
Loaded trucks 0.076 140 0.006
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

Note: The FTA‐recommended building damage threshold is 0.20 PPV [in/sec]) at the receiving non‐engineered timber and masonry building. 1 Distance from the Project construction boundary to the building structure. ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
Long‐Term (Operational) Vibration. The Project would not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from Project‐related traffic on roadways within the vicinity of the Project site (Tennessee Street, Lugonia Avenue, Texas Street, Pioneer Avenue, and San Bernardino Avenue) would be unusual for on‐road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on‐road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Therefore, vibration impacts from project‐related operations would occur, and no vibration reduction measures are required.

Overall, ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise generated from proposed Project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact
Discussion of Effect: The San Bernardino International Airport and Redlands Municipal Airport are 2.1 miles northwest and 2.4 miles northeast, respectively, of the Project site. The Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report for San Bernardino International Airport45 shows that the Project site is outside of the San Bernardino International Airport’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan46 and the City’s General Plan47 show that the Project site is outside of the Redlands Municipal Airport’s 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Also, there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the vicinity of the Projectsite to excessive noise levels generated from nearby airport operations. There would be no impact.
45   San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA). 2010. Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report for San Bernardino International Airport. November. 46   Shutt Moen Associates. 2003. Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. May 6. 47   City of Redlands. 2017. General Plan 2035. December 5.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 769 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
140

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial 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 amounts of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
   
a. Induce substantial 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any residential units.

The proposed Project would construct 451 apartment units, 72 townhome units, and 18 single‐family homes, for a total of 541 new units on the Project site. Based on a 2.77 persons per household estimate for the City of Redlands obtained from the United States Census Bureau, development of the 541 living units is estimated to result in a total population of 1,499 residents on the Project site (1,498.6 rounded to 1,499). 48 As of July 1, 2022, the population in the City was estimated at 73,288. Therefore, implementation of the Project is anticipated to increase the City’s population by approximately 2 percent.49 On March 4, 2021, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) released its final draft allocation of housing units for each jurisdiction in the region. For the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, SCAG provided the RHNA allocation number to the City of Redlands for the 2021‐2029 housing element planning period consisting of the following household income levels: 967 very‐low‐income units, 615 low‐income units, 652 moderate income units, and 1,282 above‐moderate income units for a total allocation of 3,516 units.50 Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the development of a total of 541 living units, including 27 very low income apartment units.  The remaining apartment, townhome, and single‐family residential units are expected to be sold at market rate (the above‐moderate income level). The proposed Project would account for approximately 2.8 48   United States Census Bureau, City of Redlands, QuickFacts, Persons per household, 2017‐2021. Website:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/reedlandscitycalifornia/ (accessed October 27, 2023). 2.77 persons per household * 541 units = 1,498.6. 49   1,441 residents / 73,288 total population = 0.0197 (rounded to 0.02) 50   Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, March 4, 2021.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 770 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
141
percent of the City’s very‐low‐income unit RHNA allocation51, 40.1 percent of the City’s above‐moderate income unit RHNA allocation52 and approximately 15.4 percent of the total RHNA allocation for the City.53 The proposed Project also includes the construction of a public street extension. The extension of Pennsylvania Avenue along the northern boundary of the Project site would either end in a cul‐de‐sac or connect to the existing Pennsylvania Avenue and residential community to the east. Therefore, the proposed Project could induce indirect population growth in the area through the extension of this public road. However, use of the Pennsylvania Street extension is expected to be predominantly used by local traffic and residents of the Projectsite and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Addition, the proposed Project does not include construction of addition public infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities. As such, the indirect population growth induced would be minimal.

The increase in population at the Project site would be consistent with planned population growth and housing development in the City, as anticipated by the General Plan and regional planning documents, and the proposed public street is not expected to cause substantial indirect population growth.  Since population generated by the proposed Project would incrementally increase the population of the City and not exceed local and regional population growth projections, population growth generated by the proposed Project would not be substantial. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b. Displace substantial amounts of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any residential units. Implementation of the Project would result in the development of a total of 541 living units on the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not displace existing housing, but create more housing for residents of the City. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

51   27 units / 967 very low income units = 0.0279 52 541 units/ 1,282 above moderate income units= 0.4009 53   541 units / 3,516 total RHNA = 0.1539.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 771 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
142

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection?    
Police protection?    
Schools?    
Parks?    
Other public facilities?    
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects:

Fire Protection. Fire protection services within the City are provided by the Redlands Fire Department (RFD). Development of the proposed Project may incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services as it would increase the Project site’s population by 1,499 residents. In its review of new development plans, the RFD evaluates project plans on its ability to provide proper fire protection to the development. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to pay service and development fees to the RFD. Such fees would be used to fund capital costs associated with acquiring land for new fire stations, constructing new fire stations, purchasing fire equipment, and providing for additional staff as needed and as identified by the City. Any construction of future fire protection facilities would require project‐level environmental review and site‐specific mitigation as appropriate in order to ensure significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated.

The RFD aims to meet National Fire Protection Association standards of a four‐minute response time for first responders 90 percent of the time, but as of 2015, RFD 90 percent response time was approximately nine minutes.54 Therefore, the City is pursuing a more realistic objective of arriving within seven minutes 90 percent of the time, in accordance with the 2008 High‐Level Fire Department Review for the RFD.

The RFD has determined that it would need to increase the number of fire stations in order to meet increased future citywide service demands. In the City’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 through 2027/2028, the construction of additional fire stations to maintain critical response times and provision of additional emergency response personnel were established as strategic objectives to enhance public 54   City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Revised Draft, SCH #2016081041. Page 3.13‐18. City of Redlands. July 21, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 772 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
143
health and safety within the City.55 As such, the City has begun identifying locations for additional fire stations and developing a fire staffing plan.

The Project site is located adjacent to established residential neighborhoods in the City and in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non‐VHFHSZ).56 The closest fire stations to the Project site are Redlands Fire Station 263, located at 10 West Pennsylvania Avenue, approximately 0.7 mile east of the Project site, and Redlands Fire Station 264, located at 1270 West Park Avenue, approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the Project site.57 Average travel time between the Fire Station 263 and the Project site and Fire Station 264 and the Project site is approximately two and four minutes, respectively. Through compliance with California Vehicle Code 21806(A)(1), which requires all vehicles to yield to emergency vehicles, travel time between the fire stations and the Project site is expected to be reduced. Additionally, the City maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding cities (i.e., Yucaipa and Loma Linda), as well as with the County of San Bernardino and the United States Forest Service, which allow for the services of nearby fire departments to assist the City during major emergencies.

Project design features incorporated into the structural design and layout of the residential units would keep service demand increases to a minimum. For example, the Project would be constructed in accordance with the current California Building Code (at the time of the writing the 2022 CBC), which requires all on‐site structures to incorporate construction techniques and materials such as roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors resistant to and/or to perform at high levels against ignition during the exposure to fires. Fire sprinklers would be incorporated into each residential unit to further reduce fire risk and service demand. Accessto the Projectsite would be from West Lugonia Avenue and the proposed West Pennsylvania Avenue extension, and the internal streets on the Project site would be developed to City and Fire Code Standards to allow emergency vehicles ease of access and maneuverability. Finally, fire hydrants would be placed within the Project site, at specific distances required by fire service and City requirements.

Based on the proposed Project site’s location in a LRA Non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in proximity to existing RFD facilities capable of responding to emergencies at the Project site within the City’s stated response time objective of seven minutes 90 percent of the time, the development of the proposed Project would not cause fire staffing, facilities, or equipment to operate at a deficient level of service. The Project itself would not require the construction of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could result in an environmental impact. Additionally, because the proposed Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) to fund future fire facilities and services, which would be subject to project‐  and site‐specific environmental review, impacts associated with the need to expand fire protection services and facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of service would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 55   City of Redlands. City of Redlands Strategic Plan FY 22‐23 through FY 27‐28. Website: https://www.cityof redlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/redlandsstrategicplan_final.pdf?1651172526 (accessed October 27, 2023). 56   CALFIRE, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, City of Redlands Map. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 5949/redlands.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023). 57   City of Redlands. Fire Station Locations. Available at: https://www.cityofredlands.org/pod/fire‐station‐ locations‐0. (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 773 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
144
Police Protection. Police protection services within the City are provided by the Redlands Police Department (RPD). Development of the proposed Project may incrementally increase the demand for police protection services due to the increased population of residents on the site. In its review of new development plans, the RPD evaluates project plans on its ability to provide proper police protection to the development. Additionally, the Applicant would be required to pay service and development fees to the RPD. Such fees would be used to fund capital costs associated with acquiring land for new police stations, constructing new police stations, purchasing crime‐fighting equipment for new police stations, and providing for additionalstaff as needed and asidentified by the City. Any construction of future police facilities would require project‐level environmental review and site‐specific mitigation as appropriate in order to ensure significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated.

The RPD does not base service standards on an industry standard; instead, the City aims for a response time of 4.5 minutes. The RPD has determined that it would need to increase the number of police stations in order to meet increased future citywide service demands. The Project site is located adjacent to established residential neighborhoods in the City, which are already served by the RPD. The closest police station to the Project site is Redlands Police Department located at 1270 West Park Avenue, approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the Project site. Average travel time between the nearest police station and the Project site is approximately five minutes. Through compliance with California Vehicle Code 21806(A)(1), which requires all vehicles to yield to emergency vehicles, travel time between the nearest police station and the Project site is expected to be reduced below 4.5 minutes. Additionally, the City maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding cities (i.e., Yucaipa and Loma Linda), as well as with the County of San Bernardino, which allow for the services of nearby police and sheriff departments to assist the City during major emergencies.

The Project would incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) features to keep service demand increases to a minimum. For example, the Project includes informal surveillance design such as architecture, landscaping, and lighting designed to minimize visual obstacles and eliminate places of concealment for potential assailants.

Based on the proposed Project’s location in proximity to existing RPD facilities capable of responding to emergencies at the Project site within the City’s stated response time objective of 4.5 minutes, development of the proposed Project would not cause law enforcement staffing, facilities, or equipment to operate at a deficient level of service. The Project itself would not require the construction of new or physically altered law enforcement protection facilities, the construction of which could result in an environmental impact. Additionally, because the proposed Project would be required to pay DIFs to fund future law enforcement facilities and services, which would be subject to project‐  and site‐specific environmental review, impacts associated with the need to expand law enforcement protection services and facilitiesin order to maintain acceptable levels ofservice would be lessthan significant. No mitigation is required.

Schools. The Projectsite is located within the Redlands Unified School District (RUSD). RUSD currently has 16 elementary schools (serving kindergarten through fifth grade); four middle schools (servings grades sixth through eighth); and three high schools (serving grades ninth through twelfth). The three closest schools to the Project site are as follows:
 Lugonia Elementary School located at 202 East Pennsylvania Avenue approximately 0.7 mile east of the Project site;
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 774 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
145
 Clement Middle School located at 501 East Pennsylvania Avenue approximately 1 mile east of the Project site; and
 Citrus Valley High School located at 800 West Pioneer Avenue approximately 0.5 mile north of the Project site.

Based on the proximity of the above‐mentioned schools to the Project site, students generated by the Project are anticipated to attend these three schools. Table AD: Redlands Unified School District Enrollment and Capacity Data shows the current enrollment and capacity of the Redlands School District, Lugonia Elementary School, Clement Middle School, and Citrus Valley High School.

Table AD: Redlands Unified School District Enrollment and Capacity Data District/School Enrollment Capacity Optimum Enrollment
2021‐2022
Enrollment Excess Room
Redlands Unified School District 26,125 20,302 20,162 5,963 Lugonia Elementary School 773 696 556 217
Clement Middle School 1,264 1,406 1,059 205
Citrus Valley High School 2,940 2,646 2,215 725
Source: Enrollment Capacity and Optimum Enrollment were obtained from the City of Redlands, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, Chapter 3.13: Public Facilities and Services, Table 3.13‐3: Redlands Unified School District Enrollment, pg. 3.13‐10.   2021‐2022 Enrollment Data obtained from the California Department of Education, Data Quest Website: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3667843&agglevel=district&year=2021‐22. Accessed October 27, 2023.

As of the 2021–2022 school year, the Redlands Unified School District has capacity for an additional 5,963 students; Lugonia Elementary School has a capacity for an additional 217 students; Clement Middle School has a capacity for an additional 205 students; and, Citrus Valley High School has a capacity for an additional 725 students.

The proposed Project would include the development of 451 apartment units, 72 townhome units, and 18 single‐family residences, which would generate school‐aged children that would be anticipated to attend Redlands Unified School District’s Lugonia Elementary School, Clement Middle School, and Citrus Valley High School. The proposed Project would increase the population in the community and would consequently add students to the local school system. The RUSD has accounted for the generation of its student population through its facilities planning activities based on the City’s buildout; as such, RUSD does not anticipate further growth in its boundary that would exceed planned development associated with the City’s buildout. The Project itself would not require the construction of new or physically altered educational facilities, the construction of which could result in an environmental impact. Additionally, because the proposed Project would be required to pay DIFs to fund future educational services provided by RUSD, which would be subject to project‐ and site‐specific environmental review, impacts associated with the need to expand educationalservices and facilitiesin order to maintain acceptable levels ofservice would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Parks/Recreational Facilities. The City of Redlands has 21 parks totaling approximately 424.2 acres of land. The closest park to the Project site is Texonia Park, located at the intersection of Texas Street and Lugonia Avenue approximately 0.13 mile east of the Projectsite. Texonia Park is a 10.7‐acre neighborhood Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 775 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
146
park and features a lighted soccer field, basketball courts, picnic, and playground facilities. 58 The City General Plan establishes a park standard of 5.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. As of 2021, the City had an estimated population of 73,28859 residents, pursuant to the City’s park standard, would require 366.44 acres of parkland within the City.60  Under current conditions, the City of Redlands has a surplus of 57.76 acres of parkland, per the City’s parkland standard.

The proposed Project is estimated to add 1,499 residents to the site and to the City’s population. Based on the park standard of 5.0 acre of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the proposed Project would need to develop approximately 7.5 acres of parkland.61 The proposed Project would provide a total of 201,550 square feet (sf) of private open space in the apartment complex neighborhood; a total of 32,029 sf of private open space in the townhome neighborhood; and each single family lot would include private front and back yards. However, the common open space areas would be for use by residents only and would not be open to the public.  The proposed Project would also provide a private open space parklet in the northeastern corner of the Project site, which would be used by residents of the proposed single‐family neighborhood.

In addition, the proposed Project on‐site recreational amenities including a central green belt which includes 40 to 60‐foot wide east/west garden and turf lawn, an enclosed dog park, tot lot, and a pool area.

As such, it is anticipated that impacts to surrounding parks and recreational facilities would be further reduced as residents of the Projects site are expected to use on‐site amenities. Nevertheless, some residents and/or their visitors may use other public recreational facilities. As a result, the Project would create an incremental increase in the use of area parks. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to Chapter 3.32.000, Open Space and Park Fees, of the City’s Municipal Code which requires the payment of an Open Space and Park Development Impact Fee for residential development. With payment of these in‐lieu fees, as required by Standard Condition PS‐1, below, impacts to parks with implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Standard Condition PS‐1 Payment of Open Space and Park Development Impact Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, shall confirm that the Project Applicant has paid all required park in‐lieu/park impact fees as established in Chapter 3.32.000 of the City of Redland’s Municipal Code.

Other Public Facilities. The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,499 additional residents, which would be added to the City of Redlands population. This increase in population would incrementally increase the need for a number of public services including those listed above and others such as libraries and City administrative facilities. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to Chapter 3.60.000, Public Facilities Fees, of the City’s Municipal Code which requiresthe payment of Public Facilities Fees for residential development.  With payment of these in‐lieu fees, as required by Standard 58   City of Redlands. Texonia Park. Available at: https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/texonia‐park. (accessed October 27, 2023). 59    United States Census Bureau, Redlands City, California, QuickFacts, Estimated population, 2021. Website:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redlandscitycalifornia,US/PST045222,PST045221 (accessed October 27, 2023). 60   73,288 / 1,000 = 73.288 * 5 = 366.44. 61    1,499  / 1,000 = 1.499 * 5 = 7.495.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 776 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
147
Condition PS‐2, below, impacts to other public facilities with implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Standard Condition PS‐2 Payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, shall confirm that the Applicant has paid all required public services in‐lieu/public services impact fees as established in Chapter 3.60.000 of the City of Redland’s Municipal Code.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 777 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
148

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that 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 substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project includes the construction of 451 apartment units, 72 townhome units, and 18 single‐family residences on the Project site. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project is estimated to add 1,499 residents to the Project site and to the City’s population, which would incrementally increase the public use of surrounding parks, such as Texonia Park. However, this increase is not anticipated to be such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur. It is anticipated that development of the on‐site recreational amenities including an internal greenbelt area in the apartment complex that includes a 40‐foot to 60‐foot‐wide linear east/west garden, a seating area framed by a central turf oval and trees , an enclosed dog park, tot lot, and a pool area would minimize the use of nearby parks as residents of the Project would more than likely use the on‐site recreational amenities. Further, the proposed Project would provide a private open space parklet at the northeastern corner of the Project site, which would be used by residents of the proposed single‐family neighborhood.

The proposed Project would also be required to adhere to Chapter 3.32.000, Open Space and Park Fees, of the City’s Municipal Code which requires the payment of an Open Space and Park Development Impact Fee for residential development (Standard Condition PS‐1). Twenty‐five percent of this fee would be deposited into the City’s Open Space Fund to be used solely for the purposed of acquisition, improvement, preservation, and expansion of open space areas within the City.62 As such, impacts associated with the deterioration of surrounding recreational facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
62   City of Redlands. Annual Report of Development Impact Fees. December 21, 2021.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 778 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
149
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the proposed Project would include private, on‐site amenities such as an internal greenbelt area in the apartment complex that includes a 40‐foot to 60‐foot‐wide linear east/west garden, a seating area framed by a central turf oval and trees, an enclosed dog park, tot lot, and a pool area. In addition, the Project would provide a public open space parklet located between the intersection of Karon Street and current Pennsylvania Avenue and the cul‐de‐sac terminus of the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension. The construction of these recreational facilities is part of the proposed Project, and any potential and adverse effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project’srecreational facilities have been considered throughout the analysis of thisIS/MND. As discussed elsewhere in this document, all of the proposed Project’s significant impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. As discussed above under Threshold 3.16(a), the proposed Project would not cause or accelerate the substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities, so it would not require the construction or expansion of off‐site recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 779 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
150

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
   
b. 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 information and analysis in this section is based on the Traffic Study prepared by Michael Baker International on January 13, 2023, LOS Study Addendum prepared by Michael Baker International on June 23, 2023, and the VMT Assessment prepared by Michael Baker International on January 23, 2023. These reports are provided in Appendices H‐1, H‐2, and H‐3 respectively. a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project would develop the Project site with 451 apartment units, 72 townhome units, and 18 single family units. Vehicular access to the Projectsite would be provided via two driveways from West Lugonia Avenue (a signalized intersection at New York Street/West Lugonia Avenue and a right‐in/right‐out driveway on the southwest corner of the Project site), two driveways from the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension, and Karon Street. Because the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension would either end in a cul‐de‐sac just west of the existing three‐legged intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street (Scenario A) or would extend from Karon Street west to Tennessee Street, creating a complete connection between Tennessee Street and the existing Pennsylvania Avenue east of Karon Street (Scenario B), the Traffic Study analyzed Project‐related traffic under the two scenarios.

The proposed Project isforecast to generate 3,728 daily vehicle tripsto and from the Projectsite, including 228 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 288 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Because the proposed Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips and would add more than 50 peak hour trips, the Traffic Study analyzed the proposed Project’s impact on City intersections under both Scenario A and B.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 780 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
151
Under existing conditions, all City intersections operate at overall acceptable LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, all City intersections operate at overall LOS C or better except for Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue (operating at an overall LOS D) and West Lugonia Avenue and Texas Street (operating at an overall LOS F). However, under both Scenario A and B, the City intersection at Texas Street and West Lugonia Avenue would operate at the same LOS as existing conditions. Although the proposed Project would contribute to the existing deficiency at Texas Street and West Lugonia Avenue (operating at an overall LOS D), no mitigation is necessary, as the proposed Project would not degrade operations below existing conditions.

At the intersection of Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue, the proposed Project would degrade operations below existing conditions during the PM Peak Hour. Under existing conditions, the intersection operates at an overall LOS D during the PM peak hour. Under the Existing With Project scenario, operations at the intersection would be degraded to a LOS of E under both Scenarios A and B. This would represent a conflict with Guiding Policy 5.20c of the City’s General Plan Connected City Element, which states that where the current level of service at a location within the City of Redlands is below the Level of Service (LOS) C standard, a development project shall not be approved until mitigated so that it does not reduce the existing level of service at that location. In order to mitigate the LOS degradation resulting from the proposed project, the LOS Study Addendum recommended the existing signal timing parameters be evaluated and the signal timing be optimized at the intersection of Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue. With Applicant‐funded signal timing modifications, as detailed in Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA‐ 1, potentially significant impacts to the intersection of Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue would be reduced to a  less than significant level.

In addition, all Caltrans intersections operate at acceptable overall LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour. As such, the Traffic Study identified no adverse effects at any of the study intersections with the addition of project related traffic under both Scenario A and B.

Based on the information provided in the Traffic Study and summarized above, the proposed Project would remain compliant with the City of Redlands’s Measure “U” Principles of Managed Development, which statesthat the following mustremain true with development of a project: (1) Levels of traffic service throughout the City shall be maintained; (2) collector and local street standards shall be maintained; (3) circulation patterns shall protect residential neighborhoods from increased traffic congestions; and (4) designated scenic highways within the City shall be maintained.

Because all of the Project study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS C or maintain the existing overall LOS, and the adverse Project effects at the intersection of Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels with the modification of signal timing (MM TRA‐1), the proposed Project would not impact the surrounding local and collector roadways, the proposed Project would distribute traffic directly to the collector roadways, and the proposed Project would not distribute traffic onto or impact the Scenic Highways within the City of Redlands, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Redlands’s Measure “U” Principles of Managed Development.

Additionally, pursuant to the requirements of the City of Redlands, Development Impact Fees (DIFs) will be required of the Project. The DIF is applied to pay a portion of the costs identified for public facilities, including transportation‐related improvements.

Therefore, with implementation of MM TRA‐1, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy pertaining to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Final design plans would Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 781 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
152
be subject to review and approval by City staff prior to issuance of building permits, and adherence to applicable City requirements would ensure the proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

MM TRA‐1 Prior to submission of building permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City’s Engineering Division to determine the anticipated cost of evaluating and optimizing signal timing parameters at the intersection of Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue. The Applicant shall submit payment to the Engineering Division covering the determined cost in full, consistent with County guidelines. The Building and Safety Division shall confirm the completion of payment prior to issuing building permits.

Upon conclusion of Project construction, the Building and Safety Division shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy to the Applicant until receiving confirmation from the City that signal optimization has been completed. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: As part of the CEQA Guidelines 2019 updates, Section 15064.3 was added and codifies that project‐related transportation impacts are typically best measured by evaluating the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Specifically, subdivision (b) focuses on specific criteria related to transportation analysis and is divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3) qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. Subdivision (b)(1) provides guidance on determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects using VMT; projects located within 0.5 mile of high‐quality transit should be considered to have a less than significant impact.

Subdivision (b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. Subdivision (b)(4) stipulates that Lead Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT. Therefore, the City of Redlands CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Guidelines, adopted July 2020 (VMT guidelines) was used to determine the Project VMT impacts. The City’s VMT Guidelines provide several screening criteria for projects within the City. Projects that cannot be screened out by the screening criteria should conduct further VMT analysisto identify Project‐related VMT impacts.

One of the screening criteria included in the VMT guidelines is for Low VMT Areas. The City’s VMT Guidelines state the following:

Residential and office projects located within a low VMT‐generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Using the SBCTA VMT screening tool referenced in the City’s VMT Guidelines, the VMT Assessment determined that the Projectsite is within a Low VMT Area. Therefore, based on the City’s VMT Guidelines, the proposed Project would not result in any significant VMT impacts. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 782 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
153
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
Discussion of Effects: Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways from West Lugonia Avenue (a signalized intersection at New York Street/West Lugonia Avenue and a right‐in/right‐ out driveway on the southwest corner of the Projectsite), two drivewaysfrom the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension, and Karon Street. The proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension would either end in a cul‐de‐sac just west of the existing three‐legged intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street (Scenario A) or would extend from Karon Street west to Tennessee Street, creating a complete connection between Tennessee Street and the existing Pennsylvania Avenue east of Karon Street (Scenario B).

Roadway frontage improvements in and around the Project site would be designed and constructed to satisfy all City requirementsforstreet widths, corner radii, and intersection control, as well asincorporate design standards tailored specifically to site access requirements.

All final site plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Municipal Utilities & Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits, and adherence to applicable requirements would ensure the proposed development would not include any sharp curves, dangerous driveway intersections, or visual obstructions for drivers negotiating roadway curves. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The Applicant would be required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities that would provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation. Construction activities, which may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic, would be required to implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures.

Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways from West Lugonia Avenue (a signalized intersection at New York Street/West Lugonia Avenue and a right‐in/right‐out driveway on the southwest corner of the Project site), two driveways from the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension, and Karon Street. The proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension would either end in a cul‐de‐sac just west of the existing three‐legged intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Karon Street (Scenario A) or would extend from Karon Street west to Tennessee Street, creating a complete connection between Tennessee Street and the existing Pennsylvania Avenue east of Karon Street (Scenario B). Final site plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Fire and Police Departments to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access to and within the Project site prior the issuance of building permits. Adherence to the emergency access measures required by the City would ensure impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 783 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
154

3.18 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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
   
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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Discussion of Effect: Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52),requires Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, 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 of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives Lead Agenciesthe discretion to determine,supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” Per AB 52 (specifically PRC 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such projects. Pursuant to provisions of AB 52, the City contacted the following Native American Tribes.  Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation;
 Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians;
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 784 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
155
 Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly San Manuel Band of Mission Indians); and  Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.

Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004 (i.e., SB 18), requires Lead Agencies to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the potential of traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning.

Tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 is required when a project proposes amendments or adoptions of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. As the proposed Project would include a general plan amendment, zone change, and specific plan amendment the City contacted the following Native American Tribes pursuit to the provisions of SB 18.  Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
 Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians;
 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians;
 Cahuilla Band of Indians;
 Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians;
 Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation;
 Ramona Band of Cahuilla;
 San Fernando Band of Mission Indians;
 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians;
 Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly San Manuel Band of Mission Indians);  Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians;
 Serrano Nation of Mission Indians; and
 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.

The City received requests for consultation from Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. On July 28, 2023, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation withdrew its request for further consultation. Consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians concluded upon agreement of required mitigation measures on August 23, 2023.

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Consulting Tribe[s]) expressed interest in the Project.63 The Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated that the Project site is potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources, regardless of the presence or absence of remaining surface artifacts and features. As such, the tribe requested archaeological and native monitors observe construction related ground disturbing activities, which may expose previously unknown tribal cultural resources and provided mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Given there is the potential for the proposed Project to inadvertently discover or unearth previously undocumented Native American tribal cultural resources during ground‐disturbing activities, Mitigation Measures TCR‐1 through TCR‐8 are proposed.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐1   Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Consulting Tribe(s) for the Project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on‐site during all ground‐disturbing activities (including, but not limited 63   Email dated November 21, 2022, from the City of Redlands to LSA.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 785 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
156
to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground‐disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐2   Retention of Archaeologist. Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post replacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The archaeologist shall be present during all ground‐disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The archaeologist shall conduct a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe[s] Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative. The training session shall focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground‐disturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed in such an event.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐3   Cultural Resource Management Plan. Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities the Project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to addressthe details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s) and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the Project schedule.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐4   Pre‐Grade Meeting. The retained qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) representative shall attend the pre‐grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐5   On‐site Monitoring. During all ground‐disturbing activities the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be on‐site full‐time.

The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Archaeological and Native American monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and the soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The qualified archaeologist, in Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 786 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
157
consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐6   Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground‐ disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non‐significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60‐foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe(s) of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the Consulting Tribe(s), and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Native American monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:

A. Full avoidance.

B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

C. If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.

D. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (CFR 79.1)
Mitigation Measure TCR‐7   Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Consulting Tribe(s) requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the Consulting Tribe(s).

A. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground‐disturbing activities (i.e., Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 787 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
158
clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100‐foot perimeter of the discovery.

The area shall be protected; project personnel/observers will be restricted. The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98.

B. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.

C. The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98
D. If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburialshall not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations shall be determined by the Tribe’s Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the landowner, and the City Planning
Department.

Mitigation Measure TCR‐8   Final Report. The final report[s] created as a part of the Project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the City and Consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment.

After approval of all parties, the final reports shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe(s).

With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR‐1 through TCR‐8, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 788 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
159
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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Discussion of Effect: As discussed above in Response 3.18(a), the Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated that the Project site is potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources regardless of the presence or absence of remaining surface artifacts and features. As such, there is the potential for the proposed Project to inadvertently discover or unearth previously undocumented Native American tribal cultural resources during ground‐disturbing activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR‐1 through TCR‐8, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 789 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
160

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment or storm drainage,
electrical power, natural gas or
telecommunication 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.
   
The most recent version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1) was used to estimate the Project’s water demand and the amount of wastewater and solid waste that would be generated during operation of the proposed Project (Appendix A‐2).
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electrical power, natural gas or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Local governments and water districts are responsible for complying with federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e.g., sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance are critical for sewage collection and treatment, as impacts from these processes can degrade water resources and Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 790 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
161
affect human health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are subject to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater facilities operate in compliance with water quality regulations set forth by the State. WDRs, issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants that POTWs can discharge. These permits also contain pollutant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Each POTW that intends to discharge into the nation’s waters must obtain a WDR prior to initiating its discharge.

All new development within the City is required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the City’s MS4, as enforced by the RWQCB. The proposed Project would result in typical wastewater discharges that would not require new methods or equipment for treatment that are not currently permitted for the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility, which would serve the proposed Project.

Based on the CalEEMod results, the Project is estimated to produce 20,294,564 gallons of wastewater a year(55,601.5 gallons per day).64 The City’s wastewatertreatment plant, Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility, currently treats approximately 6 million gallons per day (mgd) and has the capacity to process up to 9.5 mgd.65 The proposed Project would contribute approximately 0.9 percent66 of the current wastewater treatment rate of the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility. The proposed Project would connect to existing wastewater infrastructure, which is currently operating within capacity. Sewer service to the Project site would be provided via lines that would connect to the existing 10‐inch sewer line along West Lugonia Avenue and the existing 8‐inch sewer line along Karon Street. Compliance with condition or permit requirements established by the City, WDRs outlined by the RWQCB, as well as requirements included in the NPDES permit, SWPPP, WQMP, and wastewater conveyance standards would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the Project site and treated by the wastewater treatment facility system would not exceed applicable existing capacities. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment infrastructure.

The City operates two surface water treatment plants and uses 15 wells, 37 booster pumps, 18 reservoirs, and 400 miles of transmission and distribution lines to provide water to its customers. Of this infrastructure, one booster station is used for non‐potable water. The capacity of the City’s 18 reservoirs is a total of 54.45 million gallons. The City’s water treatment plants include the Henry Tate Water Treatment Plant and the Horace Hinckley Surface Water Treatment Plant. The Henry Tate Water Treatment Plant is a conventional water treatment plant built in 1967. The design capacity of the Tate plant is 20 million gallons per day (mgd). The City added enhancements to the Tate WTP to provide more water supply reliability by allowing State Water Project water to be mixed with Mill Creek water for treatment. The Horace Hinckley Surface Water Treatment Plant started operation in 1987 and has a permitted capacity of 14.5 mgd. The 10‐year average flow (up to and including 2016) is 6,363 af at the Henry Tate Plant, and 6,697 af at the Horace Hinckley Plant.67 The vast majority of potable water demand originated from single‐family residential uses (47 percent of the total), with the next‐highest demand coming from multi‐family residential uses (12 percent of the 64   In the absence of an official wastewater generation rate, wastewater can be reasonably assumed to be 90 percent of water use. 22,549,516 of gallons per year * .9 = 20,294,564.4. 20,294,564.4 gpy = 55,601.5 gpd 65   City of Redlands. Waste Water Treatment.   Website. https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/wastewater‐ treatment (accessed October 27, 2023). 66   55,501.5 gal per day / 6 mgd = .00925. 67   City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Revised Draft, SCH #2016081041. Page 3.13‐18. City of Redlands. July 21, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 791 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
162
total). In 2015, single‐family and multi‐family residential water usage totaled 14,506 afy. Domestic water service to the Project site would be provided via existing lines beneath Karon Street and West Lugonia Avenue. The proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension along the northern Project site boundary would include pipeline connections that would tie into the existing water line in Karon Street.  Based on the CalEEMod results, the Project’s estimated water usage would be 26,687,668 gpy (81.96 afy.68 The proposed Project would contribute approximately 0.6 percent of the total single‐family and multi‐family residential water usage for the City based on the 2015 water usage data. As such implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water supply infrastructure.

The Project site, in its existing undeveloped condition, is covered entirely by pervious surfaces and is generally flat. Because there are no storm drain connections available on the Project site, the overall drainage concept of the proposed Project is to reduce storm flows from the Project site through underground detention systems which would ultimately discharge the reduced flows onto the surrounding public streets. Storm flows from the underground detention/infiltration systems would discharge through sidewalk culverts on Lugonia Avenue and the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue extension. The underground detention chamber forstorm flows draining north would have a totalstorage volume of 4,610 cubic feet (cf), and the underground detention chamber for southern drainage would have a total storage volume of 11,530 cf. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the implementation of the proposed drainage system would comply with all applicable regulatory compliance measures and would not result in significant environmental effects from the construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities.

Section 3.6, Energy, of this IS/MND discusses the Project’s energy requirements (i.e., electricity, fuel consumption, and natural gas consumption). The proposed Project would consume nominal amounts of electricity and natural gas when compared to what is currently being generated and being consumed within the City of Redlands and within the region. The energy suppliers would have enough electricity and natural gas to adequately serve the proposed Project once it is developed and operational. According to the Project site plans, no existing electrical/natural gas infrastructure would need to be moved on site, and the proposed Project would connect into the existing utilities. Electrical service would be provided by SCE through connectionsto the existing overhead lines along Karon Street and West Lugonia Avenue. Two power poles on Lugonia Avenue, one power pole at the corner of Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street, and two power poles on Karon Street would be removed or relocated as part of the proposed Project. All other existing power poles in the vicinity of the Project site would be protected in place. Natural gas service would be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) through connections to the existing 2‐inch line beneath West Lugonia Avenue. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electricity or natural gas supply infrastructure, and there would be no impact.

Overall, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are warranted. 68 1 US gal/yr = .0000031 afy
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 792 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
163
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
Discussion of Effects: Water services are provided to the City and the Project site by the City’s Municipal Utilities Department, which is party to the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, which indicates the region is highly dependent on local water supplies. In particular, precipitation stored as groundwater provides approximately 67 percent of supplies during average years and over 70 percent of supplies during drought years.69 Based on the CalEEMod results, the Project’s estimated water usage would be 81.96 afy.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, during normal year water supply, the City would have a surplus of 28,383 acre feet in the year 2035.70 During multiple dry years, the City would have a surplus of between 23,118 acre feet (third year) and 32,556 acre feet (first year) in the year 2035. Based on the Project’s anticipated water demand of 81.96 afy, the proposed Project would demand up to 0.4 percent of the City’s surplus water in 2035 during the third year of a worst‐case multiple dry year scenario.71 Since the City hassufficient watersuppliesto meet current and future development consistent with its General Plan through the year 2035, additional waterstorage and treatment facilities are not anticipated to be required through build out of the General Plan in 2035.72 Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
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
Discussion of Effects: Please refer to the discussion under Response 3.19(a) above. Based on modeled flows, the proposed Project would contribute approximately 0.01 percent of the current wastewater treatment rates of the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility would have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts would be 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’ssolid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Solid waste in the City of Redlands is primarily disposed of at the California Street Landfill, which is operated by the City’s Facilities and Community Services Department and the San 69   Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Page ES‐2. City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department, January 2015. 70   City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Revised Draft, SCH #2016081041. Page 3.14‐20. City of Redlands. July 21, 2017. 71   69.95 afy of project demand ÷ 23,118 afy water surplus in 2035 during the third year of a worst‐case multiple dry year scenario = 0.246 percent of the City’s surplus water. 72   City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Revised Draft, SCH #2016081041. Pages 3.14‐20, 3.14‐27, and 3.14‐28. City of Redlands. July 21, 2017.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 793 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
164
Timoteo Sanitary Landfill operated by San Bernardino County. The California Street Landfill, located at 2151 Nevada Street in Redlands, accepts a maximum of 829 tons of solid waste per day, and as of July 25, 2018, has a remaining capacity of 5,168,162 cubic yards. The maximum permitted capacity is 11,400,000 cubic yards and it is anticipated to reach full capacity by 2042. This landfill currently accepts the following types of solid waste: construction/demolition debris, mixed municipal, other designated, and sludge (biosolids).73 The San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill, located at San Timoteo Canyon Road in Redlands, accepts a maximum of 2,000 tons of solid waste per day, and as of April 30, 2019, has a remaining capacity of 12,360,396 cubic yards. The San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill’s maximum permitted capacity is 22,685,785 cubic yards and it is anticipated to reach full capacity by 2039.74 The Project site is currently undeveloped and under existing conditions, produces no solid waste.

Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the Project site’s population by 1,441 residents.

Based on the CalEEMod results for the proposed Project, the proposed Project would generate an estimated 101.08 tons of solid waste per year (0.3 tons per day). The 0.3 tons per day of solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be 0.0475 percent of the maximum solid waste accepted per day by the California Street Landfill and 0.0276 percent of the maximum solid waste accepter per day at the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. Overall, the proposed Project solid waste generation contribution to these landfills would be nominal and would not exceed the daily permitted capacities of these facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are warranted. e. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: All land uses within the City that generate waste are required to coordinate with a waste hauler to collect solid waste on a common schedule as established in applicable local, regional, and State programs. Additionally, all development within the City, including the proposed Project, is required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939 (CalRecycle), and otherlocal, State, and federalsolid waste disposalstandards.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of AB 1327, AB 939, and AB 341 related to solid waste as a matter of policy. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are warranted.

73   CalRecycle. 2022. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility Detail, California Street Landfill (36‐AA‐0017).

Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Details/2637 (accessed October 27, 2023).   74   Ibid. 75   0.3 tons per day / 829 tons per day = 0.00036188. 76   0.3 tons per day / 2,000 tons per day = 0.00015 Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 794 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
165

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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
Discussion of Effect: Please refer to Response 3.9(f) of this IS/MND for a discussion on impacts pertaining to the Project’s potential to substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effect: The Project site is within a LRA Non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to CALFIRE mapping.77 The General Plan EIR, Figure 3.7‐3, indicates that the Project site is located in an area designated as a Moderate Fire Level Threat.78 No hillside areas or natural areas prone to wildfires are 77   CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, City of Redlands Map. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 5949/redlands.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023). 78 City of Redlands, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, Chapter 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Figure 3.7‐3: Fire Hazards and Fire Safety Services.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 795 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
166
located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site as this area of Redlands is urbanized with residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. Winds may push wildfire smoke into the area of the proposed Project; however, these conditions would be temporary and if conditions warranted, the local air quality control district would warn residents of potential impacts due to wildfire smoke. The proposed Project would be required to implement and abide to Redlands General Plan policies (specifically Policies 7‐A.83 through 7‐A.106) that promote fire safety through agency cooperation and management of risk factors; adhere to applicable building and fire codes; and implement existing programs such as weed abatement and education under the Redlands Fire Department; all of which would reduce the wildfire risk at the Project site. Due to the nature of the Project site and surrounding areas, on‐site and adjacent areas have minimal capability to support a wildfire. Impacts related to this issue would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is warranted.
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
Discussion of Effect: The Project site is located an urbanized area served by existing water and roadway infrastructure and does not require the installation or maintenance of wildland protection features such as fire roads, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources. In the absence of any need for such features, no impact (temporary or ongoing) would result from development of the proposed uses. No mitigation is required.
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? No Impact
Discussion of Effect: Similar to adjacent properties, the Projectsite isflat. No hillside areas or natural areas prone to wildfire fire are located in the immediate Project vicinity. Although the Project site is adjacent to fallow agriculture fields, this area is not prone to wildfires. As the Project would not expose persons or structuresto post‐fire slope instability or post‐fire drainage, no impact would occur. In the absence of any impact, no mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 796 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
167

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have the potential to 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, 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. 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. Have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
   
a. Have the potential to 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, 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.

Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project’s impacts to biological resources and cultural resources were analyzed in this IS/MND, and all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts were determined to have no impact, a less than significant impact, or reduced to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, no special‐status plant species or special‐status vegetation communities were observed within the Project site during the field survey. One special‐status wildlife species, the Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; a State SSC), was observed during the field survey. However, due to a lack of nesting habitat and this species’ status as a breeding bird along the Southern California coastal slope, the bird that was observed was more likely a transient or lingering Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 797 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
168
wintering bird that hadn’t yet made it back to its breeding territory. In addition, the implementation of the proposed Project would not cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self‐sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of rare or endangered species. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1, potential impacts to any threatened or endangered species would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, potential impacts to migratory and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐2.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, development of the proposed Project would not affect known historic archaeological or paleontological resources. There are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the Project site, nor are known religious or sacred uses associated with the Project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 and CUL‐2 would reduce impactsto known, unknown, or potential cultural resources that may be located within the Project site to less than significant levels.

Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated that the Project site is potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources regardless of the presence or absence of remaining surface artifacts and features. As such, the tribe requested that archaeological and native monitors observe construction related ground disturbing activities which may expose previously unknown tribal cultural resources and provided mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR‐1 through TCR‐8 would reduce impacts to previously unknown tribal cultural resources that may be located within the Project site to less than significant levels. Additionally, the Applicant is required to comply with California Code of Regulations(CCR) Section 15064.5(e), California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 as a matter of policy in the event human remains are encountered at any time. To ensure an exclusionary buffer of 100 feet around any encounter with human remains, Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL‐1 is required. Adherence to Mitigation Measures CUL‐1, CUL‐2, TCR‐1 through TCR‐8, and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL‐1, as well asregulations governing human remains, would reduce potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

With the aforementioned mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures, impactsto biological resources and cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. 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.

Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project has either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated with respect to all environmental issues pursuant to CEQA. Due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with the proposed Project, the Project’s impacts are primarily project specific in nature.

The cumulative effects resulting from build out of the City’s General Plan were previously identified in the General Plan EIR. The type, scale, and location of the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan.

Because of this consistency, the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Project would fall within the impacts identified in the City’s General Plan EIR. The Applicant is required to pay “fair share” Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 798 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
169
development impact fees associated with the proposed Project. The proposed Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
c. Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: Based on the analysis provided throughout this IS/MND, with incorporation of mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures, the proposed Project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Potential impacts on human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 799 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
170
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 800 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
171

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 3180) mandates that where significant effects have been identified, the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:
 The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes that have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.  The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.  A public agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be setforth in referenced documentsthat addressrequired mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.  Prior to the close of the public review period for a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either (1) submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Redlands (City) to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Project (Project) will be carried out as described in the Final IS/MND.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 801 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
172
Table 4.A lists each of the mitigation measures(MM) and regulatory compliance measures(RCM)specified in the Draft IS/MND and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 802 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
173
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking

3.1: AestheticsThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics. No mitigation is required.3.2: Agricultural and Forestry ResourcesThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources. No mitigation is required.3.3: Air QualityThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to air quality. No mitigation is required.3.4: Biological ResourcesMM BIO‐1 A pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground‐disturbing activitiesto avoid impactsto burrowingowls and/or occupied burrows. The pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted bya qualified biologist and in accordance with the methods outlined in the Staff Report onBurrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). A secondclearance survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the City of Redlands for reviewand file. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, Project activities may begin,and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be required.If an occupied burrow is found outside, but within 500 feet, of the development footprint,the qualified biologist shall establish a “no‐disturbance” buffer around the burrowlocation(s). The size of the “no‐disturbance” buffer shall be determined in consultation withthe California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and be based on the species status(i.e., breeding, non‐breeding) and proposed level of disturbance. If an occupied burrow isfound within the development footprint and cannot be avoided, a burrowing owl exclusionand mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiatingProject activities.

Qualified Biologist /Director of the City ofRedlands Departmentof DevelopmentServices, or designee No less than 14 daysprior to anyvegetation removalor ground‐disturbingconstructionactivities.A second clearancesurvey shall beconducted within 24hours prior to grounddisturbance. 
MM BIO‐2 Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and GameCode prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order toprotect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior toany ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds duringthe nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nestabandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentiallypunishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

Qualified Biologist /Director of the City ofRedlands Departmentof DevelopmentServices, or designee No more than 3 daysprior to anyvegetation removalor ground disturbingactivities. 
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 803 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
174
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
If Project‐related activities are to be initiated during the nesting season (January 1 to August31), a pre‐construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualifiedbiologist no more than three (3) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities. The qualified biologist shallsurvey allsuitable nesting habitat within theProject impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding theProject impact area. If no active bird nests are detected during the clearance survey, Projectactivities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall berequired. If an active bird nest isfound, the speciesshall be identified, and a “no‐disturbance”buffer shall be established around the active nest. The size of the “no‐disturbance” buffershall be increased or decreased based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and levelof activity and sensitivity of the species. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor anyactive bird nests to determine if Project‐related activities occurring outside the “no‐disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the younghave fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under naturalconditions, Project activities within the “no‐disturbance” buffer may occur following anadditional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new bird nests in the restrictedarea.

3.5: Cultural ResourcesMM CUL‐1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, with evidence that it has retained the services of a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior standards on an on‐call basis. Archaeological monitoring shall occur during all excavation activities down to a depth of 3 feet within 100 feet of the former residence location. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 100‐foot buffer) shall cease and the project archaeologist shall assess the find and determine appropriate treatment. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

Qualified Archaeologist/ Director of the City of
Redlands Department
of DevelopmentServices, or designee
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit.

MM CUL‐2 If significant pre‐contact and/or historic‐era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the qualified archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan for the remainder of the Project site. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be developed in coordination with the Applicant and the City. The Applicant shall secure a monitoring agreement with the archaeologist prior to the recommencement of work, and the archaeologist shall monitor during the remainder of the ground disturbance activities on the Project site and implement the Plan accordingly.

Qualified Archaeologist/ Director of the City of
Redlands Department
of DevelopmentServices, or designee
Prior to the
recommencement ofwork, and for the
remainder of theground disturbing
activities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 804 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
175
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
RCM CUL‐1 In the event that human remains or funerary objects are encountered on the Project site during any construction activities associated with the Project, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations(CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coronershall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery.

The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if theremains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the Applicant shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, shall verify that all grading plans specify the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, as stated above.

ConstructionContractor and County
Coroner / Director of
the City of Redlands
Department of
Development Services,
or designee
During constructionactivities.


3.6: EnergyThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to energy. No mitigation is required.3.7: Geology and SoilsSC GEO‐1 Compliance with applicable California Building Code and Project‐specific geotechnical recommendations. Prior to the approval of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Redlandsfor review and approval that on‐site structures, features, and facilities have been designed and will be constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of the California Building Code in effect at the time of City review and the recommendations cited in the Project‐specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, Building and Safety Division, or designee.

Applicant / City of
Redlands, or designee
Prior to the approval
of grading and/orbuilding permits.

MM GEO‐1 Prior to commencement of any grading activity on the Project site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, subject to the review and approval of the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, Planning Division, or designee. The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre‐grade conference and shall establish procedures Qualified Paleontologist/ Director of the City of
Redlands Departmentof Development
Prior to the
commencement ofany gradingactivities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 805 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
176
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
for paleontological resource surveillance and procedures for temporarily halting and redirecting work to permit sampling and identification and evaluation of fossils. If the resources are deemed to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.

Full‐time monitoring and salvage efforts will be necessary whenever previously undisturbed sediments are being disturbed (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). Once the earth moving is 50 percent completed, monitoring may be reduced if no fossils are being recovered. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be necessary to salvage any micro‐ vertebrate remains.In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor shall temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery shall be roped off with a 50‐foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP).

Services, Planning
Division, or designee During all rough
grading and othersignificant ground‐
disturbing activities.


3.8: Greenhouse Gas EmissionsThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is required.3.9: Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.3.10: Hydrology and Water QualityRCM HYD‐1 Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicantshall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements forDischarges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction and Land DisturbanceActivities (Order No. 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction GeneralPermit). This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including aNotice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater MultipleApplication and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). The Applicant shall provide the WasteDischarge Identification Number (WDID) to the Director of the City of Redlands Departmentof Municipal Utilities and Engineering, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under Applicant / Director ofthe City of RedlandsDepartment ofMunicipal Utilities andEngineering, ordesignee Prior to issuance of agrading permit.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 806 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
177
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
the Construction General Permit. Project construction shall not be initiated until a WDID isreceived from the SWRCB and is provided to the City, or designee. A Stormwater PollutionPrevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for the proposed Project incompliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shallidentify construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure thatthe potential for soil erosion and sedimentation is minimized and to control the discharge ofpollutants in storm water runoff as a result of construction activities. Upon completion ofconstruction and stabilization of the site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted viaSMARTS. 
RCM HYD‐2 Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit and develop a Stormwater PollutionPrevention Plan to the City for review and approval that incorporates Best ManagementPractices to protect water quality during construction activities pursuant to Section 13.54 ofthe City Municipal Code.

Applicant / Director ofthe City of RedlandsDepartment ofMunicipal Utilities andEngineering, ordesignee Prior to thecommencement ofany land disturbingactivities. 
RCM HYD‐3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (Final WQMP) to the Director of the City of Redlands Department ofDevelopment Servicesreview and approval in compliance with the requirements of the SantaAna RWQCB’s NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino CountyFlood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of SanBernardino County Within the Santa Ana Region Area‐Wide Urban Stormwater RunoffManagement Program (Order No. R8‐2010‐0036, NPDES No. CAS618036) (San BernardinoCounty MS4 Permit). The Final WQMP shall specify the BMPs to be incorporated into theProject design to target pollutants of concern in storm water runoff from the Project site andthe necessary operation and maintenance activity for each BMP. The City shall ensure thatthe BMPs specified in the Final WQMP are incorporated into the final Project design. Theproposed BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be incorporated into the grading anddevelopment plans submitted to the City for review and approval. Project occupancy andoperation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the WQMP.

Applicant / Director ofthe City of RedlandsDepartment ofDevelopment Services,Planning Division, ordesignee Prior to issuance of agrading permit.


3.11: Land Use and PlanningThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to land use and planning. No mitigation is required.3.12 Mineral ResourcesThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to mineral resources. No mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 807 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
178
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking

3.13: NoiseSC NOI‐1 Compliance with Sections 8.06.090F (Noise Disturbances Prohibited) and Chapter 8.06.120 (Exemptions) of the City of Redland’s(City) Municipal Code. Construction activities, including operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in site preparation, construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, paving, and/or architectural coating shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, and are prohibited at any time on Sundays and holidays unless permission is given by the City and noise levels remain below the City’s noise level standards.

All mobile or stationary internal combustion engine‐powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order and shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

ConstructionContractor / City of
Redlands
During allconstructionactivities.


3.14: Population and HousingThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to population and housing. No mitigation is required.3.15: RecreationThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to recreation. No mitigation is required.3.16: Public ServicesThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to public services. No mitigation is required.3.17: TransportationMM TRA‐1 Prior to submission of building permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City’s Engineering Division to determine the anticipated cost of evaluating and optimizing signaltiming parameters at the intersection of Tennessee Street and West Lugonia Avenue. TheApplicant shall submit payment to the Engineering Division covering the determined cost infull, consistent with County guidelines. The Building and Safety Division shall confirm thecompletion of payment prior to issuing building permits. Upon conclusion of Projectconstruction, the Building and Safety Division shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy to theApplicant until receiving confirmation from the City that signal optimization has beencompleted.

Applicant / City ofRedlands Building andSafety Division Prior to submissionand issuance ofbuilding permits. 

3.18: Tribal Cultural ResourcesMM TCR‐1 Native American Treatment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the Consulting Tribe(s) for theProject. The Tribal Monitor shall be on‐site during all ground‐disturbing activities (including,but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence postplacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines,and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to Applicant / ConsultingTribe(s) and TribalMonitor
Prior to the issuanceof grading permits.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 808 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
179
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground‐disturbing activities to allow identification,evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

MM TCR‐2 Retention of Archaeologist. Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence postreplacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigationlines, and landscaping phases of any kind), and prior to the issuance of grading permits, theApplicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the InteriorStandards (SOI). The archaeologist shall be present during all ground‐disturbing activities toidentify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The archaeologistshall conduct a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe[s] TribalHistoric Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative. The trainingsession shall focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may beencountered during ground‐disturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed insuch an event.

Qualified Archaeologist/ Consulting Tribe(s)
Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities(including, but notlimited to, clearing,grubbing, tree andbush removal,grading, trenching,fence postreplacement andremoval,constructionexcavation,excavation for allutility and irrigationlines, andlandscaping phasesof any kind), andprior to the issuanceof grading permits. 
MM TCR‐3 Cultural Resource Management Plan. Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities the Project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/orArchaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing, andresponsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Projectsite. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s) and shall includethe following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contactinformation for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, proceduresfor each MM or COA,and an overview of the Project schedule.

Project Archaeologist /Consulting Tribe(s)
Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities.

MM TCR‐4 Pre‐Grade Meeting. The retained qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) representative shall attend the pre‐grade meeting with the grading contractorsto explain andcoordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

Qualified Archaeologist/ Consulting Tribe(s)
Prior to any ground‐disturbing activities. 
MM TCR‐5 On‐site Monitoring. During all ground‐disturbing activitiesthe qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be on‐site full‐time. The frequency of inspections shall dependon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal CulturalResources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074. Archaeological and ConstructionContractor, QualifiedArchaeologist, andNative American During all ground‐disturbing activities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 809 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
180
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
Native American monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and the soilconditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The qualifiedarchaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible fordetermining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

Monitor / ConsultingTribe(s)
MM TCR 6 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and theNative American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarilyhalt ground‐disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation ofpotentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non‐significant deposits shall beminimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60‐footperimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physicaldemarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find,so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. Thearchaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe(s) of said discovery. Thequalified archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the Consulting Tribe(s), and theNative American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. Arecommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall bemade by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Native Americanmonitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are thepossible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQApreference:

A. Full avoidance.B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.C. If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or DeedRestriction.

D. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards(CFR 79.1) ConstructionContractor, QualifiedArchaeologist, andNative AmericanMonitor / ConsultingTribe(s) During construction.

MM TCR‐7 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Consulting Tribe(s) requests the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/orcremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval bythe Consulting Tribe(s).

ConstructionContractor / ConsultingTribe(s)
During construction.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 810 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
181
Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party /
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
A. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground‐disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bushremoval, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, constructionexcavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, andlandscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discoveryshall immediately stop within a 100‐foot perimeter of the discovery. The area shallbe protected; project personnel/observers will be restricted. The County Coroner isto be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours tomake his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and PublicResources Code (PRC) § 5097.98.

B. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coronershall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.

C. The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours,upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery andmake his/herrecommendation forfinal treatment and disposition, with appropriatedignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98 D. If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/orcremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbancewhere they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial shall not be disclosedby any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (CaliforniaGovernment Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/orcremations shall be determined by the Tribe’s Most Likely Descendant (MLD), thelandowner, and the City Planning Department. 
MM TCR‐8 Final Report. The final report[s] created as a part of the Project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the City and ConsultingTribe(s) for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports shall besubmitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe(s).

Qualified Archaeologist/ Consulting Tribe(s)
Upon completion oftribal culturalresource monitoringactivities. 

3.19: Utilities and Service SystemsThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems. No mitigation is required.3.20: WildfireThe proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to wildfire. No mitigation is required.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 811 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
182

5.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan. November 16.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 through 15387.

California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Department of Education. 2021‐2022 Enrollment Data, Data Quest Website: https://dq.cde.ca. gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3667843&agglevel=district&year=2021‐22 (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Department of Finance. E‐5 Population and Housing Estimatesfor Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021‐2022, with 2020 Benchmark. Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/ Demographics/Estimates/E‐5/ (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, City of Redlands Map. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5949/redlands.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility Detail, California Street Landfill (36‐AA‐0017). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Details/2637 (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap‐landscape‐architecture‐and‐community‐livability/lap‐ liv‐i‐scenic‐highways (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Department of Water Resources. 2016. Groundwater Exchange. Website: https://groundwater exchange.org/basin/upper‐santa‐ana‐valley‐3/ (accessed October 27, 2023).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast. February.

City of Redlands. 2015. Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.

Page ES‐2. City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department. January.

City of Redlands. 2017. City of Redlands Climate Action Plan, adopted December 5.

City of Redlands. 2017. City of Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, Revised Draft, SCH: #2016081041. July 21.

City of Redlands. 2017. General Plan 2035. December 5.

City of Redlands. 2020. City of Redlands CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Guidelines.

City of Redlands. 2021. Annual Report of Development Impact Fees. December 21.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 812 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
183
City of Redlands. 2022. City of Redlands – Zoning Map, April. Website: https://www.cityofredlands. org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/zoning.pdf?1649714270 (accessed October 27, 2023).

City of Redlands. 2022. City of Redlands General Plan Land Use Map. April. Website: https://www.cityof redlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/generalplan2035.pdf?1649693557 (accessed October 27, 2023).

City of Redlands. 2023. Municipal Code. January. Website: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0‐0‐0‐5191 (accessed October 27, 2023).

City of Redlands. City of Redlands Strategic Plan FY 22‐23 through FY 27‐28. Website: https://www.cityof redlands.org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/redlandsstrategicplan_final.pdf?1651172526 (accessed October 27, 2023).

City of Redlands. Fire Station Locations. Website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/pod/fire‐station‐ locations‐0 (accessed October 27, 2023).

City of Redlands. Municipal Code Chapter 12.52. Trees and Tree Protection along Streets and in Public Places.

City of Redlands. Municipal Code, Section 8.06.070 (Exterior Noise Limits).

City of Redlands. Texonia Park. Website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/texonia‐park (accessed October 27, 2023).

City of Redlands. Waste Water Treatment. Website: https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/wastewater‐ treatment (accessed October 27, 2023).

Colton, Rodger D., Sheehan Fisher, and Colton Public Finance and General Economics. 2014. Assessing Rooftop Solar PV Glare in Dense Urban Residential Neighborhoods: Determining Whether and How Much of a Problem. November 16. Website: http://www.fsconline.com/downloads/ Papers/2014%2011%20Solar_Glare.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023).

DRC Engineering, Inc. 2023. Conceptual Hydrology Study. June 26.

DRC Engineering, Inc. 2023. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. September 5.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8704H.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD 77‐108.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA HEP‐06‐015. DOT‐VNTSC‐FHWA‐06‐02. NTIS No. PB2006‐ 109012. August.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 813 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
184
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. September. Website: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/ docs/research‐innovation/118131/transit‐noise‐and‐vibration‐impact‐assessment‐manual‐fta‐ report‐no‐0123_0.pdf (accessed October 27, 2023).

Harris, Cyril M., ed. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.

Hillman Consulting. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. June 28.

Hillman Consulting. 2023. Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation. August 16.

LSA Associates, Inc. 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment. February 2023.

Michael Baker International. 2022. Results of a Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Focused Survey for The Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village – City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California.

Michael Baker International. 2023. Air Quality, Green House Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum for the Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village – City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California. June 22.

Michael Baker International. 2023. LOS Study Addendum. June 23.

Michael Baker International. 2023. Results of a Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village – City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, California.

Michael Baker International. 2023. Traffic Study for the Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village, City of Redlands. January 13.

Michael Baker International. 2023. VMT Assessment. January 23.

Moore Twining Associates, Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, The Neighborhoods at Lugonia Village Northwest Corner of West Lugonia Avenue and Karon Street, Redlands, California, Project Number: H02901.01. February 11.

San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA). 2010. Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report for San Bernardino International Airport. November.

Shutt Moen Associates. 2003. Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. May 6.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/ south‐coast‐aqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS Final Connect SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast, adopted September 3. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/ sites/main/files/file‐attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics‐and‐growth‐ forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 814 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
185
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal. September 3.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan.

March 4.

United States Census Bureau. City of Redlands, QuickFacts, Persons per household, 2017‐2021. Website:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/reedlandscitycalifornia/ (accessed October 27, 2023).

United States Census Bureau. Redlands City, California, QuickFacts, Estimated population, 2021. Website:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redlandscitycalifornia,US/PST045222,PST045221 (accessed October 27, 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Website:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10 (accessed October 27, 2023).

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 815 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
186
This page intentionally left blank
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 816 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
P:\CRX2202 Lugonia Village\04 CEQA\Initial Study\Draft ISMND\old\MMRP.docx «01/16/24» 4-1

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 3180) mandates that where significant effects have been identified, the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:
• The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes that have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
• The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. • A public agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents that address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
• Prior to the close of the public review period for a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either (1) submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 817 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
4 P:\CRX2202 Lugonia Village\04 CEQA\Initial Study\Draft ISMND\old\MMRP.docx «01/16/24» -2

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Redlands (City) to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed Texas Street Residential Project (Project) will be carried out as described in the Final IS/MND.

Table 4.A lists each of the mitigation measures (MM) and regulatory compliance measures (RCM) specified in the Draft IS/MND and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 818 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
P:\CRX2202 Lugonia Village\04 CEQA\Initial Study\Draft ISMND\old\MMRP.docx «01/16/24» 4-3 Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party/
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking

3.1: Aesthetics
The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics. No mitigation is required.

3.2: Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources. No mitigation is required.

3.3: Air Quality
The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to air quality. No mitigation is required.

3.4: Biological Resources
MM BIO-1 A pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to avoid impacts to burrowing owls and/or occupied burrows. The pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the methods outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). A second clearance survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the City of Redlands for review and file. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, Project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be required.

If an occupied burrow is found outside, but within 500 feet, of the development footprint, the qualified biologist shall establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the burrow location(s). The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer shall be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and be based on the species status (i.e., breeding, non-breeding) and proposed level of disturbance. If an occupied burrow is found within the development footprint and cannot be avoided, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiating Project activities.

Qualified Biologist /
Director of the City of
Redlands Department
of Development
Services, or designee
No less than 14 days
prior to any
vegetation removal
or ground-disturbing
construction
activities.

A second clearance
survey shall be
conducted within 24
hours prior to ground
disturbance.

MM BIO-2 Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs).

In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

If Project-related activities are to be initiated during the nesting season (January 1 to Qualified Biologist /
Director of the City of
Redlands Department
of Development
Services, or designee
No more than 3 days
prior to any
vegetation removal
or ground disturbing
activities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 819 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
4 P:\CRX2202 Lugonia Village\04 CEQA\Initial Study\Draft ISMND\old\MMRP.docx «01/16/24» -4 Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party/
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
August 31), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat within the Project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the Project impact area. If no active bird nests are detected during the clearance survey, Project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be required. If an active bird nest is found, the species shall be identified, and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer shall be increased or decreased based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if Project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, Project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new bird nests in the restricted area.

3.5: Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, with evidence that it has retained the services of a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior standards on an on-call basis. Archaeological monitoring shall occur during all excavation activities down to a depth of 3 feet within 100 feet of the former residence location. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 100-foot buffer) shall cease and the project archaeologist shall assess the find and determine appropriate treatment. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

Qualified Archaeologist
/ Director of the City of
Redlands Department
of Development
Services, or designee
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit.

MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the qualified archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan for the remainder of the Project site. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be developed in coordination with the Applicant and the City. The Applicant shall secure a monitoring agreement with the archaeologist prior to the recommencement of work, and the archaeologist shall monitor during the remainder of the ground disturbance activities on the Project site and implement the Plan accordingly.

Qualified Archaeologist
/ Director of the City of
Redlands Department
of Development
Services, or designee
Prior to the
recommencement of
work, and for the
remainder of the
ground disturbing
activities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 820 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
P:\CRX2202 Lugonia Village\04 CEQA\Initial Study\Draft ISMND\old\MMRP.docx «01/16/24» 4-5 Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party/
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
RCM CUL-1 In the event that human remains or funerary objects are encountered on the Project site during any construction activities associated with the Project, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).

With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery.

The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the Applicant shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, or designee, shall verify that all grading plans specify the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, as stated above.

Construction
Contractor and County
Coroner / Director of
the City of Redlands
Department of
Development Services,
or designee
During construction
activities.


3.6: Energy
The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to energy. No mitigation is required.

3.7: Geology and Soils
SC GEO-1 Compliance with applicable California Building Code and Project-specific geotechnical recommendations. Prior to the approval of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Redlands for review and approval that on-site structures, features, and facilities have been designed and will be constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of the California Building Code in effect at the time of City review and the recommendations cited in the Project-specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, Building and Safety Division, or designee.

Applicant / City of
Redlands, or designee
Prior to the approval
of grading and/or
building permits.

MM GEO-1 Prior to commencement of any grading activity on the Project site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, subject to the review and approval of the Director of the City of Redlands Department of Development Services, Planning Division, or designee. The Qualified Paleontologist
/ Director of the City of
Redlands Department
Prior to the
commencement of
any grading
Redlands Regular Meeting of 03-05-2024 821 of 967

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT LUGONIA VILLAGE PROJECT
4 P:\CRX2202 Lugonia Village\04 CEQA\Initial Study\Draft ISMND\old\MMRP.docx «01/16/24» -6 Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Draft IS/MND Mitigation Measure or Regulatory Compliance Measures Responsible Party/
Approving Agency
Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Tracking
qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference and shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and procedures for temporarily halting and redirecting work to permit sampling and identification and evaluation of fossils. If the resources are deemed to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.

Full-time monitoring and salvage efforts will be necessary whenever previously undisturbed sediments are being disturbed (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). Once the earth moving is 50 percent completed, monitoring may be reduced if no fossils are being recovered. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be necessary to salvage any microvertebrate remains.

In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor shall temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery shall be roped off with a 50- foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.